ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Consultative Group on the Past

Mark Pritchard: What timetable he has set for responding to the report of the Consultative Group on the Past.

Shaun Woodward: I am taking time to reflect on the consultative group's detailed report, which deals with some of the most difficult challenges facing Northern Ireland today. We will need to hear the views from a wide range of people before making a response, and we will be interested in the conclusions of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is also considering the report.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Secretary of State agree that, by allowing the consultative group to define a victim in the way that it has, the natural scales of justice and, indeed, the moral order of life and death have been upset, and will he give a commitment to the House that he will not accept any recommendations that will cause further distress to innocent victims and reward those who have inflicted loss upon themselves?

Shaun Woodward: May I begin by paying tribute to the work of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley in producing this report? The matter we invited them to explore is extraordinarily challenging, and I am fully aware of the controversy that has arisen about some of the recommendations, not least on recognition payments, which, last week, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I made very clear that the Government will not accept. I am equally aware of the concern that has been expressed about the issue of so-called moral equivalence. Therefore, let me be very clear about one matter in this regard: any terrorist act is utterly reprehensible, and we can all acknowledge that terrorism has led to awful suffering in Northern Ireland, but we now need a way to move forward that meets the needs of victims and helps Northern Ireland society work towards a shared future, and that is why I made it very clear last week that the Government would not consider recognition payments.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State will be aware of the conviction yesterday in respect of the murders nine years ago of Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine, but does he recognise that there are many outstanding questions in that case, which are typical of all too many other cases from the past, in terms of the need for both truth and justice? Those questions relate to the role of informers and agents and the readiness of the Chief Constable to go for public interest immunity certificates, rather than to pursue full investigation and proper prosecution in due time, leaving too much on the shoulders of families?

Shaun Woodward: First, may I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the conviction, which it is extremely important for us to acknowledge? Many issues to do with the past must be addressed in Northern Ireland. In putting all this into context, one of the most important things to say is that an enormous burden is placed on every family who lost a loved one in the course of the difficulties, and that is why, again, I say to the House that we will spend a long time reflecting on the proposals in the Eames-Bradley report. We will also look forward to the report of the Select Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I am glad to see is in his place. We have many lessons to learn from the past in Northern Ireland, and if we are to be able to move forward to secure an environment of lasting peace and prosperity, we must ensure that Northern Ireland is not held in the grip of its very troubled past, but finds a settled place for a settled future.

Patrick Cormack: May I thank the Secretary of State for what he said about the work of our Committee? May I also congratulate him on ruling out the misjudged and mistaken recommendation on so-called recognition payments? However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Lord Eames and Mr. Bradley appeared before the Committee last week and gave some extremely interesting evidence, and I hope he agrees that it would be a pity if their whole report is put on one side because of one particularly mistaken recommendation.

Shaun Woodward: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations on the report. There is no question but that the report itself poses a number of challenges, and there are sections of it that will pose some communities greater difficulty than others. Nevertheless, the lesson of Northern Ireland is very clear: if we have political courage and leadership, and if we are able to confront the challenges, we will find a way through. That might take time, and it is appropriate sometimes to remember that time is our friend.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments of appreciation on the work of the group and the individuals concerned. Does he accept, however, that his off-the-cuff dismissal on a radio programme of that one somewhat contentious recommendation, without giving it the due consideration it deserved, has, to some extent, belittled the work of that group and of those individuals?

Shaun Woodward: First, may I firmly underline again my thanks to Lord Eames and Denis Bradley for producing this report? It is important to remind the House that not a single one of the recommendations in this excellent piece of work was simply dreamt up by Lord Eames or Denis Bradley one morning. Even the highly contentious recommendation of recognition payments, for which there is clearly no consensus, was something they had heard suggested from a number of people in the community, and not just from one section of the community. I do not believe that we dismissed it in an off-the-cuff way, because it was perfectly clear from the representations that were made, not just from one community but from across the communities, that there was no consensus on recognition payments.
	This is a highly emotive issue, and we are all aware of the very understandable emotions that were invoked, so I do not wish to suggest in any way that it was simply an emotional response. Having said that, the group was asked to find a consensus on how to deal with the past but when it came to the issue of recognition payments, it was patently obvious—it was not an off-the-cuff decision, but a considered one—that there was no consensus on it and therefore it was entirely inappropriate to proceed with that recommendation.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State has recognised the lack of consensus on the so-called recognition payments, which were obnoxious in drawing a moral equivalence between perpetrators and victims. Will he apply the same principle to the other recommendations of the Consultative Group on the Past: that there must be a consensus on the sensitive issues in that report? There are many concerns, particularly in the Unionist community, about not only the obnoxious recognition payments proposal, but other elements of the Eames-Bradley report. There should never be anything that presents an equivalence between victims and perpetrators, and the Secretary of State must take that need for consensus into account when acting on the other recommendations.

Shaun Woodward: I firmly recognise that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely entitled to his point of view, which I suggest to him is not one that is entirely shared across the House or across Northern Ireland. None the less, I respect the fact that his view is strongly and deeply held, although I would beg to disagree with some of his remarks and conclusions. It is clear to me that there is consensus in Northern Ireland on the need to deal with the past. There is clear consensus among many on another issue: to deal with issues of the past by public inquiries, which may lead to some £200 million being spent on one inquiry, deeply troubles not only this House—rightly—but many people in Northern Ireland who genuinely pose a question about whether the public interest is being served by the public inquiry. The Eames-Bradley group was right to address that issue, and it put forward proposals, which this House and those in Northern Ireland must now carefully consider.

Owen Paterson: On 25 February, the Secretary of State said on the BBC online that
	"it is an interesting idea, but very clearly the time is not right for a recognition payment."
	Can he confirm that the time will never be right?

Shaun Woodward: I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to be extremely careful here, because it is very easy to pour scorn on the work of Eames and Bradley in relation to the concept of recognition payments. He should remember that they did not invent the concept themselves—that proposal was put forward not just by one individual, but by a number of individuals; it was put forward not just by one community, but by a cross-section of the community. Because the idea has failed to find consensus, it is right for the Government to say that, at this time, we rule it out. I simply say to him that he needs to listen to what people are saying and he needs to be careful about the conclusions that he is drawing, because there are people who hold a very deep conviction on the issue. I happen to disagree with it, but that does not mean to say that I am not prepared to listen.

Owen Paterson: That was a very interesting reply. To pick up on the Secretary of State's answers to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), we on the Conservative Benches welcome the Secretary of State's decision not to go ahead with the payments, which we consider to be repugnant. To put it simply, does he agree that there can be no moral equivalence between the two little boys murdered in Warrington and their murderers?

Shaun Woodward: I am particularly aware of the two little boys murdered in Warrington, because the constituency is a neighbouring one to mine and it is an issue about which I know that not only the people of Warrington and Merseyside, but the whole House feels extremely strongly. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman of what Eames and Bradley rightly set out to do: to have the overarching objective of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As I have said, I personally have condemned totally the activities and consequences of terrorism in Northern Ireland. There is nobody in this House who would sensibly condone the behaviour of terrorists, and there must never be any possibility for us to do anything other than condemn it. But I say to him that we need to understand that there are many people in Northern Ireland who have strong views, and that it is important to listen and, having listened, to learn.

Alistair Carmichael: The comments by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and others indicate the difficulties that lie ahead for the Secretary of State if he insists on proceeding on what he terms the basis of consensus. There was a broad consensus on recognition payments, and it was broadly opposed to them. He was right to abandon the proposal, but I hope that he will proceed with the remainder of the Eames-Bradley report, which is excellent in its conclusions. Does he agree that so-called moral equivalence is not what the reconciliation process is about?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the key word of the Eames-Bradley report—reconciliation. They rightly understood that they needed a clear objective, which was to promote peace and stability. In order to promote that, it would be necessary to reconcile people and communities, and that is why they recognised the excellent work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the police ombudsman in investigating the past. Eames and Bradley also rightly—in my opinion—came to the conclusion that the current arrangements probably need to be changed for the long term. That is one example of one proposal in the Eames-Bradley report that the Government are considering very carefully. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful consideration of the entire report, not just one highly controversial section.

Parades Commission

David Taylor: What recent discussions he has had with the Parades Commission on parades planned for summer 2009; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: I met the chairman of the Parades Commission yesterday when he briefed me on the ongoing work of the commission. I look to all those involved in the 2009 parading season to build on the positive progress made in recent years.

David Taylor: It is now two years since Lord Ashdown was appointed to chair a strategic review of parading in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to update the House about progress in that regard. Does he agree that whatever national recommendations might eventually emerge, the key to peaceful parading is for local organisations and communities to enter dialogue to resolve any difficulties they may have at local level?

Paul Goggins: The strategic review of parading that is chaired by Lord Ashdown issued an interim report last April. Since then, it has consulted extensively across Northern Ireland and it is still compiling its final report. While I cannot tell the House when I expect to receive it, I hope that it will be soon. My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important issue: in Northern Ireland last year there were some 3,800 parades, most of them uncontentious. Where there is a dispute, it is best resolved when the paraders and the protestors sit down together and work out a practical solution to their disagreement. That has been the key to success in recent years, and I hope that it will be the key to success in 2009 as well.

Peter Robinson: Does the Minister accept that the issue of parades is inextricably linked to the issue of policing and justice, and that the police expend considerable time and enormous sums of money on dealing with contested parades? There is no faith in Northern Ireland on either side of the community in the Parades Commission. The work of Lord Ashdown is therefore pivotal. I have had the opportunity to speak to Lord Ashdown and real progress is being made with his report. Will the Minister do everything possible to encourage publication of that report and the overcoming of the remaining obstacle that appears to stand in the way of publication?

Paul Goggins: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the costs of policing contentious parades are unacceptable, and that money could be spent on neighbourhood policing across Northern Ireland. I know that he seeks a resolution to this problem every bit as much as I do. Lord Ashdown and his review body have come up with an alternative to the Parades Commission, which I hope will command support across all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and offer us a way forward. I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance that I will continue to work with the review body to resolve any disagreements that may still exist, because he is right to say that we need a resolution to this issue within the context of the devolution of policing and justice powers.

Robert Goodwill: In answer to the previous question, the Secretary of State talked about the grip of the past and, in many ways, the parades reinforce the prejudices of the past. If the Minister agrees that Northern Ireland is moving into a new era and needs to move on from its sectarian past, does he also agree that the Labour party should follow the lead of the Conservative party and field candidates in national elections in Northern Ireland?

Paul Goggins: That is a very interesting way of arriving at the final question. The Labour party has now established a membership in Northern Ireland and that has been agreed within the rules of my party. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—we need to leave the past behind as regards parading as well as all other aspects of the past conflict. Indeed, it is now more than three years since the dreadful events of the Whiterock parade. We have had a number of years of very peaceful parading and the key to that success has been the local dialogue and the local agreement between people who have a fundamental disagreement about parading. It is possible to find solutions and I encourage people to do so this year, too.

Peace Process

John Robertson: What assessment he has had made of the level of threat to the peace process from dissident groups; and if he will make a statement.

Shaun Woodward: The Chief Constable and I have made it clear that the dissident republican threat has risen significantly in recent months. As a result the Police Service of Northern Ireland has proportionately increased its response. It is important for the House to note that these criminals have absolutely nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland and this House should send an unequivocal message that we reject their attempts to threaten the community.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. A car bomb was placed near a school in County Down in January following a warning from the head of MI5 that republican groups had been growing in number in the area. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what has happened in relation to that car bomb and attempts to track down the perpetrators? What is being done about those groups, which seem to be on the rise again?

Shaun Woodward: The House will wish to know that from May to the end of the period of the recent Independent Monitoring Commission review there has been an increase in the number of attacks from dissidents and that that number is now higher than at any time in the past five years. My hon. Friend asked about the specific events at Castlewellan at the end of January. It is right to report to the House that several controlled explosions were carried out on 29 January, leading to the discovery of a timer power unit and a viable explosive device in the boot of the vehicle. That was the second dissident republican improvised explosive device so far this year.
	I want to join all local politicians in Northern Ireland in utterly condemning that senseless act. It is crucial that we should recognise, however, that the police response will be proportionate. They have upped their response, but we have to recognise something extremely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know how strongly the Secretary of State feels that this information should be put across to the House, but we are in Question Time. He is really making a statement and I have to consider Back Benchers who want to ask questions.

William McCrea: No one could deny the Secretary of State's statement that dissident republican terrorists have nothing to offer the community. Thirty years of Provisional IRA terrorism did not have anything to offer the community, either. We can condemn terrorism for as long as we like, but what active steps will the Government take to ensure that we defeat terrorism and allow Northern Ireland to move into a genuinely peaceful and tranquil era?

Shaun Woodward: It is important to tell the hon. Gentleman that we can do two things. We can back our Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security forces, and we should congratulate them on foiling this terrible attempt by a small group of criminals with no community support to threaten that community. It is also important to send the message to Northern Ireland that politics is winning and that that is the only way forward.

Eddie McGrady: Did the Secretary of State read the in-depth interview in the  Irish News of 16 February with the leader of Oglaigh na hEireann, the group that claims responsibility for the bomb at Castlewellan in my constituency? The leader of the group claimed that the intent was to cause the maximum murder of civilians and military personnel in Ballykinler. Some of my local residents are concerned about the considerable delay between the bomb being found abandoned in the morning and the detonation of its contents. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no restraint in giving intelligence information to the operating security forces, even to protect the sources of that information?

Shaun Woodward: It is important to recognise that this is now very much an ongoing police investigation. It is also important for me not to make a running commentary on that investigation, but I believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.

Laurence Robertson: As has been mentioned, there has been an increase in dissident activity that has included a brutal murder, the use of pipe bombs and a petrol bomb. Dissident weapons have also been discovered, including sawn-off shotguns and pistols, and in particular there have also been attacks on the police. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the police response will be proportionate, but what protection can he give to the police? Like the communities, they too are the targets.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House's attention to the extraordinarily brave work carried out by members of the PSNI. I want to reassure him and other hon. Members that the Chief Constable, myself and others are doing everything that we can to protect the brave men and women of the PSNI. However, what the House can do is send an unequivocal message to the criminals who would threaten the community—that politics is winning, and that paramilitary criminal activity is always destined to fail.

Republican Paramilitary Groups

Andrew Robathan: What recent assessment he has had made of the involvement of republican paramilitary groups in drug-related crime in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: The Independent Monitoring Commission has confirmed that dissident republican groups are involved in drug-related crime. The PSNI will continue to work with the other members of the organised crime task force to disrupt their criminal activities.

Andrew Robathan: But of course the majority of dissident republicans used to be members of the Provisional IRA, which gained most of its money from extortion and other criminal activity while it carried out murder and terrorism. The Provisional IRA was inextricably linked to Sinn Fein, which now has Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government. Does the Minister believe that Sinn Fein ever benefited from criminal money and drug-related crime? What is his assessment of whether it still has connections with drug-related crime and other criminal activity?

Paul Goggins: The people and political parties of Northern Ireland have moved on from the days described by the hon. Gentleman. It is very important that people are able to move on from the grip of fear that dissident republican groups are attempting to deploy across the communities of Northern Ireland. One of the especially despicable things that dissident republican organisations are involved in is the extortion of money from drug dealers. In many cases, they use extreme violence but at the same time they pretend to protect communities from those who deal in drugs. It is absolutely essential that we deal with those dissidents, bring them to justice and make sure that they pay the price for their heinous crimes.

Sammy Wilson: Locals in south Armagh boast that it is one of the biggest oil-producing areas of the world—not because of its geological features but because republicans smuggle and launder fuel there. Millions of pounds are lost to Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue, damage is done to the environment and violence is committed to support that criminal empire, but even so very few people have been arrested and very few assets seized. Will the Minister say when we shall see an all-out assault by the police, HMRC and the Serious Organised Crime Agency against those criminals?

Paul Goggins: We are putting that all-out assault firmly in place. Last year, I established a fuel fraud enforcement group, with the co-operation and active involvement of law enforcement agencies in Ireland as well as in Northern Ireland. Since then, there have been a number of arrests, as well as widespread seizures of equipment, cash and illegal fuel. The hon. Gentleman is right that these groups are intent on raising money to support their terrorist activity. They absolutely have to be stopped and I am determined, with partners in the organised crime task force, to do exactly that.

Public Inquiries (Costs)

Simon Burns: What estimate he has made of the total final cost to the public purse of the current public inquiries taking place in Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: The Bloody Sunday inquiry is expected to cost a total of £190 million, including costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence. The Hamill, Wright and Nelson inquiries are expected to cost a combined total of £117 million. The total cost, to the end of January 2009, of all four public inquiries is £267 million, and 70 per cent. of those costs relate to the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

Simon Burns: Does the Secretary of State realise that over a quarter of a billion pounds has been spent on the inquiry? When will the time come when the money is spent on investing in a better future for Northern Ireland, rather than on the past?

Shaun Woodward: With huge respect to the hon. Gentleman, I realise that the inquiry cost that much. That is why I have just reported that the total cost was a quarter of a billion pounds. He is right, though, to draw the attention of the House to the very high cost of public inquiries. I am pleased to report to him not only that we are trying to do our best to drive down the cost of inquiries, but that together with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, we are looking at ways of producing better public value from public inquiries.

Philip Dunne: I listened with great care to what the Secretary of State had to say. Does he not think that it is time to put the past behind us, stop frittering away money on matters that happened 25 years ago, and spend that money on getting people back into employment in Northern Ireland, not on worrying about the past?

Shaun Woodward: Let me commend to the hon. Gentleman the report of Eames and Bradley, which clearly addresses many of the issues that he raises. I caution him on one point: in dealing with the loss of life in Northern Ireland—nearly 4,000 people lost their lives in the course of the troubles—we must all be very careful about describing investigations into the past as "frittering away" public money.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Keith Vaz: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 March.

Harriet Harman: I have been asked to reply.
	I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of the servicemen killed in Afghanistan in the past week. They were Corporal Tom Gaden, Lance Corporal Paul Upton and Rifleman Jamie Gunn of 1st Battalion the Rifles, and Marine Michael Laski of 45 Commando, who died last week following injuries sustained in Afghanistan. We owe them, and all who have lost their lives, our gratitude for their service. They are dedicated people, fighting in our interests for a safer world. They will not be forgotten.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the United States. Yesterday he had talks with President Obama, and today he will address the United States Congress.

Keith Vaz: In a survey published last week, 74 per cent. of parents said that they were very concerned about the increasing violence in video games. Given the increasing availability on the internet of games that exhibit scenes of graphic and gratuitous violence, when do the Government propose to implement the Byron report in full? This is not about censorship; it is about protecting our children.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his long-standing campaign on the issue. We need to make sure that we have tough classifications that are properly enforced. We need to make sure that parents have the information that they need. We need to make sure that the industry plays its part. The Government will take action on all those fronts.

William Hague: May I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to Corporal Tom Gaden, Lance Corporal Paul Upton, Rifleman Jamie Gunn and Marine Michael Laski, all of whom, as she said, have given their lives in the past week in service to their country in Afghanistan? I also want to express our horror at the attack yesterday on the Sri Lankan cricket team, and join in sending our thoughts and condolences to the families of those killed and injured in that outrage. Thinking of all those people, will she agree that if there is to be any further increase in British troop levels in Afghanistan, it must be accompanied not only by clear and achievable objectives and the tackling of corruption in Afghanistan, but by a commitment from the Government to a proportionate increase in the number of helicopters and armoured vehicles, which are essential if our forces are to do their job?

Harriet Harman: Of course we agree that our troops should have all the logistical support that they need when they are in the field.
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising what happened in Pakistan, and I fully support what he said. This terrible attack is a tragedy for Pakistan and we strongly condemn it. It was an attempt to destabilise democracy in Pakistan and it cannot be allowed to succeed. Our thoughts are with the families of the Pakistani police officers who died and with the Sri Lankan cricketers. The Foreign Secretary has written to the Presidents of Pakistan and Sri Lanka and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has conveyed his condolences. The UK is working closely with Pakistan and the international community to combat the threat from terrorism and violent extremism, which threatens not only the security of the region but the rest of the world.

William Hague: We obviously agree about Pakistan, and we will hold the Government to their commitment on the necessary equipment for our forces in Afghanistan.
	On the economy and domestic matters, we have been pressing for several months now for action to get credit moving from the banks to businesses and, in January, the Government finally announced a type of loan guarantee scheme, the working capital scheme, saying that it would help businesses now. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that it is not yet operational and that not a single loan has so far been guaranteed under the scheme?

Harriet Harman: The provisions under that scheme are being finalised, but I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to convey the idea that there is not real help available to businesses now. There is. Businesses with cash-flow problems can apply to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to defer their tax payments, and 72,000 businesses throughout the country have been able to do that. Businesses have been helped with their cash flow by making sure that the Government and Government agencies pay their bills on time, and they are doing that. Businesses are also helped by the extra money being put into the economy with the VAT cut, the extra help to pensioners and tax credits. Businesses are also helped by public investment: capital investment in building schools, hospitals and children's centres, which the right hon. Gentleman would cut.

William Hague: The right hon. and learned Lady may wish to get off the subject of the working capital scheme, but this was the Government's flagship scheme for getting credit moving in the economy, which is what so many of us called for. The Prime Minister said on 14 January that the scheme would give real help for business now. The Government promised that it would become operational by 1 March. It is now 4 March and it is not remotely operational. It seems that they applied to Brussels for state aid clearance only last week. Hundreds of businesses are going under and tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs. She is holding a summit on the recession in Downing street today. While she is in charge and the Prime Minister is out of the country, will she undertake to look at this with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do everything possible to speed up the implementation of this now long-delayed scheme?

Harriet Harman: This scheme will come into effect. We have taken a number of measures to get lending going again in the economy, nearly all of which the Conservative party has opposed. We have taken action to recapitalise the banks. We have taken action— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Hands, why do you not allow the Leader of the House to answer the question that she has been asked? It is unfair to shout.

Harriet Harman: We have taken action to save the banks from total collapse, action that the Conservatives opposed, and they would have allowed the banks to collapse. We are taking action now to require the banks to increase their lending, and that is why we have an agreement with Northern Rock for £14 billion extra to be lent into the housing market and £25 billion extra to be lent to small businesses. We have been taking the action, all of which the Conservatives have opposed, and we have been getting real help to businesses. The right hon. Gentleman can say all he likes about one particular measure, but while we take a range of measures, they would do nothing.

William Hague: I am not talking only about one particular measure. Not only is the working capital scheme, announced in January, not operational now in March, but the jobs recruitment scheme, announced in January, has now been delayed until April; the mortgage support scheme, announced in December, has not even been worked out yet; the guarantee scheme for asset-backed securities is not starting until April; and the Lloyds bank deal, meant to be announced on Friday, has also been delayed. I am not talking about one measure, but about the failure to implement right across the Government's economic policy.
	Why does the Leader of the House not step in? When Chamberlain lost his party's confidence, Churchill stepped forward; when Eden crossed the Atlantic, exhausted, Supermac came forward. This could be her moment. While the Prime Minister is away, will she step in and make sure that these schemes, on which so much economic confidence depends, are actually implemented now?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very important question of mortgage support. People are worried; they fear that if they lose their job, they will lose their home. I remind the House that we have given help to people who fear that they might lose their homes. Instead of having to wait 39 weeks, people who become unemployed will get help with the interest payments on their mortgages at 13 weeks, and an extra amount will be allowed. For people who lose their jobs, we have put extra investment into the jobcentres, and the private organisations too, which help people get retrained and back into work.
	As far as the courts are concerned, every single county court now has a help desk to protect people who face repossession, and the building societies and banks have agreed that they will not take repossession action until at least three months of arrears have accumulated. Yes, we are working to ensure that if income falls in a household, there will be a moratorium for up to two years for interest payments. We are working on that, and we look forward to bringing it forward. While the right hon. Gentleman focuses on political gossip, we focus on fighting for Britain's future.

William Hague: The right hon. and learned Lady should not describe her leadership campaign as "political gossip"; that is not the way to go about winning the leadership of her party.  [Interruption.] Yes, I do know about that. I am only a deputy now, but at least I am a loyal one.
	If the right hon. and learned Lady will not step in and secure the implementation of all the schemes that I have mentioned, will she step in on the other matter vital to economic confidence—the recognition of past mistakes? She has been overruled, we understand, on Royal Mail, and she has been hung out to dry by the rest of the Cabinet on the Goodwin pension. But she has the opportunity to speak for the Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues, urging him to say sorry and move on. In the disagreement between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, whose side is she on, and will she advise the Prime Minister to say sorry for past mistakes?

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that when it comes to financial services, yes, we should all learn lessons and take action on the basis of that. Lessons need to be learned not only by the Government but also by the regulators and the financial services industry itself, and action needs to be taken. And we will take action on regulation, remuneration and corporate governance.
	But as well as making sure that we have the right regulation system in this country, we have to recognise that whatever the system of regulation in one single country, we have to work together to make sure that the global financial system is properly regulated, because this has been a global financial crisis. So we will learn the lessons and we will take action.
	But it is not just for us to learn lessons; the Opposition, too, have lessons to learn. When they were in government, there was no golden age of regulation: people lost a great deal in the collapse of BCCI and through the mis-selling of pensions. When we brought forward statutory regulation, they fought us tooth and nail, and all the way; and even as the credit crunch began to bite, they called for the total deregulation of the mortgage market.
	As far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. and learned Lady speak.

Harriet Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to learn lessons, let me remind him of what he said when he was Leader of the Opposition:
	"As Prime Minister, I will make deregulation one of my top priorities."
	He went on:
	"I will drive regulation from the centre. And I will promote Ministers not on the basis of whether they regulate enough, but on the basis of how much they deregulate".
	So yes, we have lessons to learn, but we will learn no lessons from him.

William Hague: Mr. Speaker, you would never think the Leader of the House was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, who named a whole Department after deregulation and regulatory reform; you would never think she was speaking on behalf of a Prime Minister who said yesterday that he had nothing to apologise for. Is it not now the case that we have Cabinet Ministers manoeuvring for the leadership while the Prime Minister is abroad, and a Government who no longer command the confidence of the people of this country; and is it not clearer than ever that the people who got us into this mess cannot be the people to get us out of it?

Harriet Harman: It is sad but predictable that the right hon. Gentleman should focus on political gossip. Our focus under the Prime Minister will be on the real concerns, real worries and real anxieties of people in this country. We will get on and build the new schools, new hospitals and new children's centres that the Opposition would stop; and we will help business whereas they would do nothing. I am happy to leave the political gossip to him; we are getting on with fighting for the future of this country.

Lyn Brown: Some 34,000 families in my constituency are languishing on the council's housing waiting list. They earn, on average, less than £24,000 per year, yet the Mayor of London has decided to decrease the numbers of homes for rent built in the capital by 10 per cent. Failing to deal with the snow was one thing, but blatantly ignoring the needs of my constituents and tens of thousands of other Londoners is another. Can she—will she—intervene?

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend and her hon. Friends will stand up for all those people in London who need housing and need it now. While Boris Johnson, the Mayor, does not recognise their concerns, I know that they have, in my hon. Friend, a champion on housing.

Vincent Cable: May I add my condolences to the families of Marine Laski, Rifleman Gunn, Lance Corporal Upton and Corporal Gaden, who all died serving their country on 25 February; and also to the victims of the Sri Lankan atrocity.
	As the Leader of the House is a former pensions Minister and Law Officer and, I believe, a trained solicitor, she is exceptionally well placed to understand pensions law. Instead of the rather eccentric proposal for a "Harriet's law" to stop Sir Fred Goodwin's pension, would it not be more sensible for the Government to use existing legislation under which pensions can be forfeited in cases of employee negligence, which is surely the case with Sir Fred Goodwin, Adam Applegarth of Northern Rock and the others who bankrupted their banks?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I can update the House on this matter. The Government have asked United Kingdom Financial Investments to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the contract for Sir Fred Goodwin's pension, including the extent to which it was discretionary and including whether or not the people who took the decision had all the facts on which they could take it. That, too, bears on the enforceability of the contract. We are absolutely clear that it is not acceptable and we are taking all steps to challenge the enforceability of the contract.

Vincent Cable: I think that the right hon. and learned Lady is missing the point. The issue is not whether the pension is £400,000 or £700,000; the issue is why it is being paid at all. Is this not part of a much bigger issue? There is growing anger in what she calls the court of public opinion not just about the pension and remuneration of those who are now public sector employees, but about other public sector fat cats, including senior civil servants and, dare I say it, Ministers, and their very lavish and generous pensions. Does she recognise that anger, and what is she proposing to do about it?

Harriet Harman: I think that we do recognise that concern. In particular, there is concern about the question of remuneration in the financial services industry because it has been part of encouraging short-termism and risk-taking. As well as looking at the contractual basis of Sir Fred's pension, we have also asked the Financial Services Authority and the Walker commission to look at how we tackle and improve the remuneration regime as part of corporate governance.
	When it comes to the banks squandering their customers' money, there is one thing that perhaps I ought to add. I discovered that it was not only Sir Fred who was getting money off RBS; it was also the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who got £30,000 off the Royal Bank of Scotland, it turns out, for just two after-dinner speeches.

Hon. Members: Pay it back!

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [ Interruption. ] Order. You must be quiet—you cannot shout across the Chamber.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not say, "Pay it back". What I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend is that in 1965, a piece of legislation was brought in by the Labour Government covering statutory redundancy pay. That has been eroded over many, many years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend support my private Member's Bill on 13 March that would ensure that the Government will look at the matter again, and ensure that there is a better deal for statutory redundancy pay? Will she ensure that the Government will back that private Member's Bill?

Harriet Harman: We want to do everything that we can to support people who, through no fault of their own, lose their work. I know that that private Member's Bill is coming forward; the Minister will respond on that occasion and give his response to those important proposals.

Michael Jack: In addition to the list that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave to the Leader of the House of schemes to assist business that are not operating, may I add one more? It is the scheme to introduce help for those without trade credit insurance, promised by the industry Minister when the Government announced their help package for the motor industry. Thousands of companies around the country, both large and small, are finding trading extremely difficult without this trade credit insurance. When will the Government announce the details of that scheme?

Harriet Harman: I agree that that scheme is important. We have to do everything that we can to help manufacturing—in particular, through the automotive assistance scheme. In addition, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that businesses in his constituency benefit from public capital investment. I hope that he will agree with us that the Opposition should not oppose capital investment in his constituency. I hope that he will support the ability for businesses in his constituency to defer their tax payments. Opposition Members have a choice: they can either say to their constituents that there is no help and that nothing can be done, and wring their hands, or they can work to support businesses and bring schemes forward.

Andrew Dismore: At this very moment, in west Hendon mosque in my constituency, funeral prayers are being held for my constituent, 19-year-old university student Hassan Kul Hawadleh—an innocent victim of a brutal knife attack, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, merely filling up at a petrol station. Rather than attend his funeral, his family asked me to come to the House today to ask my right hon. and learned Friend this: what more can be done to redouble our efforts against knife crime to prevent such pointless tragedies occurring again in the future, and to support families such as theirs in their bereavement?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan police, local authorities, schools, youth centres and community organisations across London are working together to tackle the menace of knife crime. While crime generally has gone down, there is a problem of knife crime that persists, which is why we have strengthened the law to ensure that there is a greater possibility of searches and that there are tougher penalties. But today, we share with my hon. Friend the grief about his constituent, and we send our condolence to the bereaved family.

Ann Winterton: Will the deputy Prime Minister confirm that the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handing—it over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors? What sense is there in that?

Harriet Harman: The real reason, and the basis on which we are bringing forward the Postal Services Bill, is the analysis in the Hooper report, which we commissioned as long ago as December 2007. It made it clear that we need to take action to put Royal Mail, which, as the Prime Minister has said, is part of the fabric of our society, on a firm footing for the future. That means that we have to ensure that the pension liabilities are met. We have to ensure that the unfair regulation is tackled. We have to ensure that there is legislative underpinning of universal postal services, and also that we get into the organisation—so that, as well as meeting its pension liabilities, it can also modernise—considerable public capital investment but also private capital investment. When we bring forward that Bill to support the future of Royal Mail, I hope that the hon. Lady and all other hon. Members will support it.

Celia Barlow: I am delighted that the Government have brought forward £900 million of capital funding for schools. Shockingly, however, the Conservative-led Brighton and Hove city council failed to take advantage of the £9 million available locally, despite admitting that there are not enough places for my local children. What advice does my right hon. and learned Friend have for councils that could not get it together in time to take advantage of our Government's funding?

Harriet Harman: There is no excuse for my hon. Friend's council not to step forward to ensure that it can take advantage of the funds that have been made available to improve still further the education prospects of children in her constituency. I hope that she will be able to work with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that, despite the lagging behind of her local council, it will get on and deliver for children in her constituency.

Elfyn Llwyd: Can the Leader of the House please confirm who it was that nominated Sir Fred Goodwin for a knighthood and, crucially, why?

Harriet Harman: I believe that Sir Fred was nominated for a knighthood because of his services to the Prince's Trust. I understand that it was not in recognition of his services to banking.

Andy Reed: Last week, we laid the first bricks in the £4 million extension to Rainbows children's hospice, which is in my constituency but serves the whole east midlands. We still need another £1 million, plus £2.5 million each year to keep the hospice running. When are the Government finally going to act to ensure that children's hospices do not rely for 95 per cent. of their funding on local residents and fundraisers, and finally get them to parity with adult hospices, for which about 40 per cent. of the funding comes from the public purse?

Harriet Harman: I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those in the NHS, both in hospital care and in the community, who help with palliative and end-of-life services, but I would also like to pay a very big tribute to the hospice movement, the voluntary movement that has spearheaded new ways to care for people at the end of their lives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made that a priority, investing £30 million extra for palliative and end-of-life care and announcing additional support for all hospices and hospice home services for children up to the age of five. There is a great deal of progress under way, and it is very important indeed.

David Jones: The right hon. and learned Lady will be aware that electronic identification of sheep will become mandatory for all animals born after 31 December this year. Does she share the view of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the cost of complying with those rules outweighs the benefits? Does she recognise that those costs may well force many thousands of British farms out of the industry, and will she urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to apply whatever pressure it can to the EU to drop this ridiculous and unnecessary legislation?

Harriet Harman: I know that identification of sheep is very important as part of infection control. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a serious issue. Therefore, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him on the issue.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, contrary to what was said by the quasi-deputy leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), we have in fact already received the agreement of the Commission for the £2.3 billion of aid for the motor industry and we expect to have clearance for the £20 billion working capital package this month? That said, will she take it from me that now is the time, when we have those permissions and the schemes in place, for us to get cracking and get the money out to the companies that deserve and merit it? Will she also have a word with my very good friend in another place, congratulating him on what he has done, but telling him that he has got to get cracking?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes some very important points. I would have liked to give those points as my answer to a previous question, but I would also like to tell the House that the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill, which will be introduced in the House today, will facilitate an extra £16 billion, to be directly available. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome that Bill being introduced to the House today.

bill presented
	 — 
	Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Pat McFadden, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Paul Murphy and Ian Pearson, presented a Bill to amend section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and to amend section 1(1) of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 70) with explanatory notes (Bill 70-EN).

Teaching of British History in Schools

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the compulsory teaching of British history in schools; and for connected purposes.
	Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today to advance a cause that I and many Members of this House feel passionately about, but which in recent decades has been shamefully neglected: the teaching of the history of our nation and its peoples to pupils in schools across the land. The peoples of these magnificent British Isles—England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—along with the numerous and unique British territories around the world, have a rich and proud history like no other. From Stonehenge to St. Paul's cathedral; from the battles of Agincourt, Trafalgar and Waterloo to the defeat of the Spanish armada and the liberation of the Falkland Islands; and from the invention of the steam engine to the discovery of penicillin, the great explorations of the seven seas and the British empire, the depth and breath of our history is unsurpassed.
	Yet, today, where does the comprehensive teaching of British history figure in our nation's education? I believe that it is time that British history was made a core subject in all schools and at all stages of learning, so that every young person can grow up with an appreciation and understanding of all that has made our nation great throughout the centuries, and with an ability to demonstrate that to future generations, so that they in turn will wish to play their part in building on what has gone before, as the next chapter of British history unfolds.
	In their seminal work of 1930, "1066 and All That", Sellar and Yeatman famously wrote that every schoolchild could be relied on to recall two key dates in our history—the Norman conquest in 1066 and Julius Caesar's invasion of England. Today, we cannot rely on even that level of knowledge. Despite the best efforts of history teachers to advance the subject and provide children with a solid grounding in the fundamentals, they are constrained by a history curriculum that does not enable pupils to develop a comprehensive understanding of British history. A recent Ofsted report worryingly noted that pupils' knowledge and understanding of "key historical events" is not good enough, and that their knowledge is fragmented,
	"patchy and specific; they are unable to sufficiently link...historical events...form overviews and demonstrate strong conceptual understanding."
	It also noted that their
	"sense of chronology is...weak and they are generally unable to...relate to a longer narrative or story of the history of Britain".
	Unlike in most European countries, the teaching of history is no longer compulsory in British schools after the age of 14, and evidence suggests that the history curriculum in our country is deeply flawed. The following findings from surveys conducted over the last few years offer some alarming insights into this matter. It was found that 70 per cent. of 11 to 18-year-olds did not know that Nelson's flagship at the battle of Trafalgar was called HMS Victory. More than 20 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds thought that Britain had, at one stage, been conquered by the Germans, the Americans or the Spanish. Several children mistook Sir Winston Churchill for the first man to walk on the moon. He also joins King Richard the Lionheart and Florence Nightingale as being mistaken regularly by our youth as a creation of fiction.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has previously highlighted, full participation in our nation is greatly aided by a thorough understanding of our heritage and tradition. The study of history helps children better to grasp their own identity, and reading history enables our younger generation to analyse and question the present by engaging and examining what has gone before. Knowledge of the history of our country is so important because it allows people to make informed decisions about the future of our nation. If our children do not know where they come from, how can they possibly move forward? By learning about the rich tapestry of British history, they can identify with the culture and society of modern Britain.
	Over the past decade, the number of students reading history has fallen, from 35 per cent. of teenagers taking history at GCSE level in 1997 to 30 per cent. in 2007. This led Ofsted to claim last year that history was increasingly becoming an "endangered subject". Indeed, Britain in particular is envied for its rich history, the knowledge of which we must cherish and hand down to future generations. Something is going wrong, however. Many pupils harbour a negative view of history by the age of 16. According to some universities, many of those who study the subject in higher education have very little knowledge of history prior to the 20th century.
	It is Henry and Hitler who now dominate the history syllabus. Most pupils today would be able to recite the fate of Germany in the second world war and the tribulations of Henry VIII and his wives, but little else. World war two and the Tudor dynasty were, of course, significant events in our nation's history, but to study them in isolation is not truly to understand the events that led to and followed them.
	Change is needed to ensure that young people's knowledge does not remain patchy and over-specific, and tied only to one or two moments in our nation's history and ignorant of others. They need to be able to comprehend a longer narrative of our history. Knowledge of events such as the establishment of Parliament, the triumphs of the British empire, the monarchy and our Royal heritage has to an extent been cast by the wayside.
	If we are to advance the cause of British history, we must not focus solely on England. Currently, the history curriculum sheds very little light on Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. British history should encompass all countries and all peoples of these isles, as well as those parts of the world in which Britain has had a significant input—including those whose people still identify themselves as British, such as in Her Majesty's overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
	A proper appreciation of our nation's history is an important factor in forging national cohesion. It would combat the current failure of some pockets of our youth to engage with society and enlighten them as to the impact of the key factors that have shaped our nation over the centuries. History has always been a great contributor to British democracy and has allowed us to conduct a pluralistic analysis of the status quo.
	The importance of learning and appreciating history cannot be underestimated. To quote the revered historian, Anthony Seldon:
	"Only if young people learn about their own country, and its place in the world, will they be able to play their full part as citizens and voters."
	I commend the Bill to the House.

David Winnick: I take the view that politicians should be very careful about laying down what should be taught in history, and particularly what should be taught in schools. Only today I read in a newspaper that Russian teachers have been told that they should be very careful over what is being taught to school pupils about the communist period. One person associated with the Russian Prime Minister said:
	"Don't throw mud at the Motherland".
	Clearly, Russian history teachers are being sharply told what should and should not be taught.
	If we are to have lessons in British history, a number of points that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised should be emphasised. I would not necessarily disagree with his view that this country has a proud history and I see no reason why school pupils should not be told about it. I imagine most of them are. However, other aspects of our history should also, in my view, be told. School children should be told, for example, about what happened in 1381, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention that. This was the first revolt by ordinary people in this country and it took place over a poll tax— [Interruption.] It was the peasants' uprising, led by John Ball and Wat Tyler— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Bill's promoter was heard in silence, so we should also allow the hon. Member opposing it to be properly heard.

David Winnick: That was an important aspect of British history, when ordinary people decided that they were going to revolt against a poll tax rather earlier than our more recent disagreements over a similar tax. What about the Levellers and the Diggers, following the civil war? Then, again, ordinary people took the view that the abolition of the monarchy should be followed by a system in which they could vote and take decisions, which would otherwise have been impossible—and was impossible for a long time to come after the civil war. However, there was not a single mention from the hon. Gentleman of the Levellers and the Diggers—a very important aspect of British history. For that matter, I would also like to see some recognition in the House of Commons of those who fought in those days for elementary rights.
	What about the Great Reform Act? Not a single mention was made by the hon. Gentleman of the agitation of the people of this country that they should have the right to vote. Before the Great Reform Act of 1831— [Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members are getting so excited. Before the Reform Act of 1831, only a very small number were able to vote. The overwhelming majority of people had no vote at all and the agitation—the reform—that led to the House of Commons becoming more representative is surely an aspect of history that should be taught and that we should be pleased about. There was no mention either of Peterloo in 1819, when a number of people were killed demonstrating in Manchester, some four years after the end of the war against Napoleon, so the hon. Gentleman is being very selective.
	Another topic in British history was not mentioned—the Tolpuddle martyrs. In 1834, six people in a small village in Dorset were convicted of a criminal offence and deported to Australia. Why no mention of the Tolpuddle martyrs? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what happened or ashamed of it?

Andrew Robathan: It is history. What about 1832?

David Winnick: The Tolpuddle martyrs were in 1834.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, my view is that we, as politicians in a democracy, should be careful about not laying down what should or should not be taught in schools. The hon. Member for Romford has a strong view; so do I. The more we leave history to the professionals and do not intervene, the better. That is the proper way to go about matters.
	I oppose the Bill, but I do not consider it, or at least what the hon. Gentleman himself has said, of such major concern that he should divide the House. The House has a busy day ahead, and if he wants permission to proceed with his Bill, which will not get anywhere, so be it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Andrew Rosindell, Angela Watkinson, David Simpson, Mr. Mark Lancaster, Andrew Selous, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Frank Field, Joan Ryan, David Cairns, Mr. David Jones and Mr. Henry Bellingham present the Bill.
	Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 71).

Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).

Shaun Woodward: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill—
	 Timetable
	1.—(1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
	 Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall (notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; and
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3.—(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not 40 previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has—
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	 Subsequent stages
	8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	 Reasons Committee
	10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion 90 of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chairman shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	 Miscellaneous
	11.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	(2) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14.—(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the Order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	15.—(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates)—
	(a) at today's sitting, or
	(b) at any sitting at which Lords Amendments to the Bill are, or any further Message from the Lords is, to be considered, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	17.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Shaun Woodward: It might help if I briefly spell out why we have tabled the motion and the parliamentary timetable for the Bill. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the timetable. I would like to explain why we are taking weeks rather than months to take the Bill through Parliament to Royal Assent.
	The Government committed at St. Andrews that when the Assembly was ready to ask for the transfer of policing and justice powers, the necessary enabling legislation would be in place. We had envisaged that it would take up to a year to see sufficient confidence built to realise stage 2. However, 18 months have passed before the political environment has felt confident enough even to begin the process.
	On 18 November 2008, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to say that they had reached agreement on a way forward to the completion of devolution. In January this year, the committee reported on its deliberations on the devolution of policing and justice powers, and the Assembly agreed the report on a cross-community vote. The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, having gone through their Assembly and Executive Review Committee, have asked that we give legislative form to their agreements of November and January. In that sense, the Bill not only enjoys confidence, but has "Made in Northern Ireland" stamped firmly on it.
	This is not the legislation that will affect the transfer of power. It is, however, important in that it makes a series of changes to departmental models, and deals with arrangements for the appointment of a Justice Minister and arrangements for the judiciary. It is for the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly, to decide when to ask for the transfer of powers. The triple lock set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1988 remains firmly in place. We made a commitment to be ready to play our part, and that is why it is necessary to have this legislation in place now and to expedite its path. That is not for the convenience of the Government; it is in order to ensure that when the Assembly asks, we are ready. That is why I am asking the House to expedite the arrangements without undue delay.
	I am very aware that this is not the first occasion on which we have asked for the passage of Northern Ireland legislation to be made a matter of urgency, and, along with my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I continue to be grateful to the House for its indulgence. It has helped to spur Northern Ireland to its transformation from violence to peace and from inequality to partnership in power, truly building the environment for a shared future. I ask again for the co-operation and support of the House in expediting this legislation, thereby enabling those who are elected in Northern Ireland to take control of their destiny and, at a time of their choosing, accept responsibility for the policing and justice powers that currently reside in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Owen Paterson: I was first alerted to the imminence of the Bill when during the week before the recess, through the usual channels, I learnt that the Government intended to publish it on Monday 23 February, the day on which Parliament resumed. The House would be given one full day to read it, understand it and table amendments before proceeding to consider all stages on Wednesday 25 February.
	It has always been our policy not to let party politics intrude on our deliberations on Northern Ireland. We have always striven to be a responsible Opposition, maintaining the broad bipartisan consensus that has brought the peace process so far. However, this proposal really did ask too much, as it gave us so little time in which to analyse a Bill that, although short, amends a number of earlier Acts. More negotiations followed, and I was pleased when the Government agreed to a further week, resulting in today's business.
	It is highly unsatisfactory that any Bill should be put through all its stages in the elected House in one day, when even the non-elected House is given two days. There have been times when emergency legislation on Northern Ireland has been put through in a day, and those circumstances have been understandable. However, although there is no such emergency on this occasion, I was given to understand that the Government had set a timetable so tight that it would allow the Assembly time to consider the Bill, with the result that criminal justice and policing would be devolved before the summer recess. I was therefore very surprised when, during our brief debate on the business of the House last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is present—the First Minister, no less—declared that no date for devolution had been agreed, and that time should be allowed for a full debate in the House.
	That makes the position even more unsatisfactory. However, given the Government's majority and ability to control the programme, I fear that further debate and voting on this motion would eat into the limited time available for Second Reading and the Bill's remaining stages. I am strongly tempted to vote against the motion, but I should prefer my hon. Friends—I know that they have strong feelings on the issue, which are quite justified—not to press the motion to a Division if they can possibly restrain themselves from doing so, thus allowing us to proceed to the main business.

Eddie McGrady: Let me say at the outset that, on behalf of my party, I oppose the programme motion.
	The House has seen plenty of legislation that needed to be passed urgently, but here we have legislation being rushed through as if it were urgent when in reality there is no urgency whatsoever in terms of politics in Northern Ireland. Whether we like it or not, we still have no date for the devolution of justice—the Secretary of State has made that perfectly clear on many occasions—so why rush this legislation through now? Why should we not take a bit of time, not to delay it but to consider it properly? What harm could there be in that? In fact, it could only create better legislation. The other place is taking two days to consider the Bill, so why is this House being rushed and restricted to a single afternoon on a day that features a busy schedule?
	It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bill is being rushed through not because of its urgency, but because of its defects. Perhaps that is why copies of the consolidated legislation on which the Bill is largely based were not supplied to political parties until 9.16 pm on Monday, when amendments had to be tabled by 10.30 pm. That constitutes indecent haste, and prevents parties and Members from doing their job properly in the House. Members were left to trawl through the spaghetti of seven different Acts in that short time: the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission Etc.) Act 2003, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004.
	Not only does the Bill amend those Acts; it confounds some of the explanations and assurances that were given in the House during their passage. It contradicts previous understandings of, in particular, the way in which the devolution of justice would work, and it is defective in a number of respects. It means that the 2011 Assembly elections can be followed by an indefinite period during which there will be a Department of Justice without a Minister. Worse, it means that unless by May 2012 the Assembly has agreed to a permanent model for the devolution of justice, or the Secretary of State intervenes, the position will be the other way around: we shall have a Minister for Justice without a Department.
	That, of course, would be a very dangerous position. The absence of a Department of Justice would mean chaos in the sphere of justice and law in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is why paragraph 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to introduce a fallback, although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister agreed that there would be no fallback. The fallback is the model of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act, which allows the DUP the very thing that Sinn Fein foolishly conceded in July 2008: a DUP veto over the appointment of a Minister for Justice "at all times". That, of course, could lead to further rows about who the Minister for Justice will be after 2012, potentially leaving the Department without a Minister again.
	All that might not matter if the future was in safe hands, but it is not. Both the DUP and Sinn Fein have played the devolution of justice card time and again for their own advantage, not for the common good. Indeed, just last year, while the world economy was falling apart around us, they could not agree to let the Executive meet to discuss the issue.

Nigel Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eddie McGrady: Not at the moment.
	They could not agree to that as they were indulging in a partisan stand-off over the devolution of justice. If they are willing to allow that, we can safely assume that they will be willing to let a crisis build in 2011 or 2012—and perhaps the elections coming up this year and next year will be fought on that artificially created agenda. That is why it is all the more important that this legislation looks for positive ways out of crises, rather than pushing parties towards them, and that is what our amendments try to do. They avoid such opportunities for stunts, stand-offs and showdowns, and they promote positive politics in Northern Ireland. They help bring this Bill back into line with the Good Friday agreement, which the people supported. We deserve the time to consider these amendments properly.
	Members of this House may, rightly, feel tired of all the legislation on the devolution of justice, but this Bill is more important than any other measure, as it stands a chance of being used in reality—and it is highly likely that it will be abused. Therefore, this House should use its powers. It should scrutinise Bills properly, rather than rubber-stamp them for the sake of some unknown expedient. For as long as this House legislates for Northern Ireland, it has a duty to ensure that it legislates well for Northern Ireland, and that it promotes solutions, not confusion. That is why this Bill deserves to be debated more fully.
	I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds).

Nigel Dodds: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am sure he will want to correct what he said when he put the blame for non-meetings of the Executive equally on the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein. Does he not accept that the First Minister and the DUP were at all times willing for the Executive to meet, and, indeed, suggested an open agenda so that the Executive could meet on any issue, but that Sinn Fein blocked the meetings, as was said in the Assembly by the hon. Gentleman's Social Democratic and Labour party colleagues?

Eddie McGrady: The hon. Gentleman has intervened on the point of the political manoeuvring of last year. In my opinion, both parties were using the stand-off to create party political advantages for themselves. The general tenor of my remarks is that my party opposes the programme motion and has a mind to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).

Patrick Cormack: I will not speak for long, but I want to make a couple of what I hope will be reasonably cogent and important points.
	This is not tremendously controversial legislation; it is necessary legislation, and I support it, and if I am fortunate enough to be called to speak in the substantive debate, I will explain why I support it briefly and, I hope, fairly persuasively. There is a difference between haste and indecent haste, however. There is a case, which the Secretary of State has made, for passing this Bill reasonably quickly, but I stress the word "reasonably" as there is no need for it to be rushed through this House this afternoon.
	This is a further example of the Government's disdain for the House of Commons. The Secretary of State has a good record on that issue, but his Government have a bad one. Time and again, timetables have not given adequate time to discuss measures, and today we have another example. We are constrained even as we speak in this debate, because we have four hours for the whole of the proceedings up to the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, including the time we are taking now, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) appealed to us not to vote. I understand the logic of that appeal, but it is very wrong that the business motion debate is eating into the time for Second Reading. We ought to have a period of, perhaps, an hour for this debate—it does not need to be a long time—and then we should have time for Second Reading on top of that. We then have two hours for the remaining stages. There is absolutely no indication in the amendments on today's Order Paper of any desire by anyone of any party in Northern Ireland or anywhere else to filibuster. There are some amendments that deserve consideration, but there will not be enough time to debate them properly, and that is wrong.
	I have a high regard for the Secretary of State, and I know he does not mean to insult either the House or the people of Northern Ireland, but the way in which this is being railroaded through does, in fact, insult them. It does not give us in this House time for adequate debate, and it does not say to the people of Northern Ireland, who will be following our deliberations with considerable interest, that we have scrutinised this very important measure adequately and properly.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points. Would he like to reinforce them by acknowledging that the business of this House in the coming weeks and months does not seem over-onerous? We are not over-burdened with legislation, and there seems to me to be plenty of opportunity for this measure to be properly debated.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, to which I was going to allude. There has never been a thinner Queen's Speech than the one we had in December. The legislative burden has never been lighter. I do not grumble at that, because I am one of those who have consistently argued for less legislation, not more, but the fact is that we do have adequate time. It would have been perfectly possible for us to have had two days—the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) does not ask for longer, as it makes a modest request—which would have given time for proper consideration of this short but important measure.

Gregory Campbell: My hon. Friend is cogently outlining the need for more time. Is not the nub of the point that there is little likelihood of the devolution of policing and justice occurring in the next year or several years, so why the need to proceed with such indecent haste?

Patrick Cormack: I do not want to comment on the timetable for devolution; that is very much in the hands of the Assembly and the parties represented in it. I was very glad to see the declaration of 18 November, but it outlined a process and did not give a timetable. In my opinion, that was appropriate, but it is for my friends from Northern Ireland—I am referring to "my friends" in a wide generic sense, including the gentlemen on the Benches opposite—to decide exactly when this will happen. What is important is that, when it does happen, it should be permanent and not come unstuck. I agree with the substance of the intervention, because what the hon. Gentleman—who until recently was a very valuable member of my Select Committee—is saying is that there is not this urgency: we do have the opportunity to have a couple of days, and the general parliamentary timetable should permit it.
	I must thank the Minister of State for helping to prevent the originally proposed absurdity of publication on 23 February and debate on the 25th. That would have been quite appalling, and when the Minister of State came before the Select Committee the week before the recess, we made it quite plain to him in no uncertain terms that that was something, in the immortal words of Churchill, up with which we would not put. The Minister of State was extremely helpful in trying to ensure that there was time for the Bill to be published and for people to study it before Second Reading. I just ask, far more in sorrow than in anger, that having done that, which was proper and much appreciated, why does he still stick to the one day's consideration, especially in view of the fact that the other place has two days? I do not complain about its having two days, because that is entirely proper, but we should also have had two days. It is for those from Northern Ireland to determine whether time should be taken in the Division Lobby. I, personally, will not call a Division by shouting at the appropriate time, but I wish to make it plain that if there is one, I shall most certainly support the amendment and vote against this programme motion.

Peter Hain: I always follow, with great respect, the contributions made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), because he is dedicated to making sure that this House's proprieties and traditions are upheld, especially in its scrutiny of the Executive, and I salute him for that. However, I think it is important that this programme motion goes through—ideally, as the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary mentioned, there will not be a vote. I say that because, notwithstanding the understandable concern that there should be proper scrutiny—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) always makes that point with great persuasiveness—we must look at the big picture. I think it is important that Parliament passes this motion and clears this Bill today.
	This whole story goes back to what happened at St. Andrews in October 2006, when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The commitment from the Government to try to achieve the devolution of policing and justice by May last year was in that agreement. I concede absolutely the fact that my friends in the Democratic Unionist party did not sign up to that. The St. Andrews agreement was, as it were, the Government's best call of where the consensus lay. Subsequently, we got the historic breakthrough when, early in 2007, Sinn Fein signed up to supporting fully the rule of law, and policing and justice in Northern Ireland—it had never done that before. Part of that agreement, which is crucial to the peace process and was crucial to the eventual settlement that we achieved, was on the understanding that policing and justice would be fully devolved to Northern Ireland. It is very important that Parliament upholds the spirit of the St. Andrews agreement; after all, the St. Andrews legislation, which was introduced shortly afterwards, was passed by Parliament and the objective then was set for May 2008—that date has passed, but it is essential that the momentum is kept in this process. I say to the House that having been right in the thick of the negotiations with Sinn Fein and the then leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to try to get the agreement that produced the settlement and, ultimately, the devolution in May 2007, I know that the policing and justice issue was crucial, and the DUP was rightly insisting that Sinn Fein sign up to it.

Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I admire the part that he played in achieving what was achieved in Northern Ireland—he played a very significant role—but he must appreciate that this is not a question of whether we have devolution. That is not at issue today, and there is broad agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland that they wish to move towards that. The Bill is not going to hold that process up or advance it; it is merely a necessary step. All that those of us who are arguing against the programme motion are saying is that the reputation that he and his successor have should not be spoiled by this indecent haste and undue pressure—there is no need for it.

Peter Hain: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I must respectfully disagree with him. Having been in the position of taking emergency Bills through this House as Secretary of State in order to keep momentum in the process, which produced the very settlement that occurred in 2007, I think that this is part of it. What we are doing here today is opening the door to the devolution of policing and justice—it is for the Assembly to decide when it walks into the room. As he says, every party agrees on the principle of the devolution of policing and justice—that is not controversial. Every party agrees that it has to happen according to the Assembly's time of choosing—

Richard Shepherd: rose—

Peter Hain: I just want to make these points and then I shall give way, because I do not wish to speak for too long. Everybody agrees on the principles. This Bill opens the way to that devolution, and that is why it is important to get it through in a timely fashion, today.

Richard Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he has taken emergency Bills on Northern Ireland through the House. Is he suggesting that this is an emergency Bill?

Peter Hain: I am not taking this Bill through, and I was talking about what I had had to do—I had had to test the patience of the House. Obviously, all of us like plenty —[Interruption.] This is not an emergency Bill in the same sense, but it is a Bill that is vital to keep momentum in the process. I wonder why there is opposition to this programme motion; if everybody agrees on the principle, as everybody tells me that they do, if everybody says that they want to see this devolution happen, as everybody says that they do, and if everybody wants to make sure that the dissidents in the republican movement do not gain any extra purchase and the mainstream republican movement, led by Sinn Fein, is able to keep on the path to the devolution of policing and justice, why would people stand in the way of this Bill going through the House today?

William McCrea: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify one day of debate in this House and two days of debate in another House? Surely this is the proper place where the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, who are voted in by the people of Northern Ireland, scrutinise legislation.

Peter Hain: The House will have plenty of time to scrutinise this legislation —[Interruption.] This is a largely technical Bill. It comes from a process in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister agreed in November last year on a way forward. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee reported in January on its conclusions, and this Bill largely implements what the Assembly wants. It is for the Assembly to decide when it delivers on the principle, so I cannot see why there is any reason to oppose a Bill that everybody says they support and that reflects the Assembly's wishes. This Parliament, in this House today, is merely giving effect to the Assembly's wishes.

Mark Durkan: One of the reasons we need more time to consider this Bill is that Members such as my right hon. Friend clearly do not understand some of the details of it. It is not good enough to say that it is merely technical, because it provides for the collapse and dissolution of a Department in a few years' time, so it needs to be properly considered. He referred to legislation that he had pushed through this House. Does he recall the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which was rushed through in exactly this way? He promised us that it would be the last measure like this and that it would be the last model for the devolution of justice and policing, and he dismissed those of us who contradicted him by saying otherwise—we have been proved correct today.

Peter Hain: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. I am not going to repeat the points that I made, but I remind the House that it is for the Assembly to decide exactly the format of the new justice Department. We are facilitating a process, and unless we keep momentum in it, it could fall over. The need to keep momentum has been the lesson over the years in Northern Ireland. We were able to get momentum in the critical period in 2006 to 2007, which has brought us up to the point where the last bit of devolution now needs to be accomplished.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: I have to give way to a fellow Chelsea supporter.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I am curious to understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by the process falling over. Is he aware of some threat that a particular party will pull the plug on the process if we do not get this through quickly? Is he seriously suggesting that if we take an extra few days to scrutinise the Bill properly, the process will fall over?

Peter Hain: No, I did not say that. Fellow Chelsea supporters should be more charitable to each other on these occasions. [Hon. Members: "They need to be."] I know that the First Minister is also a fellow Chelsea supporter, so I know that he will support me on this occasion.
	I understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny, which was well expressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and, I am sure, will also be well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but I urge the House not to divide on this motion.

Peter Bone: I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 1(1), leave out 'at today's sitting' and insert
	'in two allotted days, which shall not be consecutive,'.
	It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is known for his support of democracy, although I was slightly unhappy with what he said. I hope that when he hears about my amendment, he will realise that it will not significantly delay progress. I intend to press my amendment to a vote, if I have the opportunity to do so.
	The effect of amendment (a) would be that the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill would take place today until the moment of interruption and a further day would be allocated for Committee and Third Reading. This would allow proper scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Bill. This is not a wrecking amendment. It would allow the Bill to proceed with proper scrutiny on the Floor of this House. Amendments (b) to (f) in my name on the Order Paper are consequential to amendment (a).
	My interest is in the allocation of time motion, which I believe dilutes parliamentary debate and scrutiny and, therefore, our democracy. I will not be talking about the Northern Ireland Bill itself, as that should be left for Second Reading, which, if my amendment were carried, would continue until the interruption of business this evening.
	The Executive have put Parliament in a real Catch-22 situation, because the longer that we take to debate the allocation of time motion, the less time we will have to debate the Northern Ireland Bill. Parliament has been given three hours to debate the allocation of time motion and, if the debate runs the course, that will give MPs only one hour for the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill. If there are Divisions, Second Reading could be reduced to the farcical time of just 30 minutes, giving time only for the Minister to speak and no proper debate. This is a gross abuse of Parliament by the Executive. It is electoral dictatorship by a control-freak Executive. There is, of course, a strong argument for debating this allocation of time motion for the full three hours, which would involve Parliament actually standing up to the Executive. Not even this Government would dare to proceed on the basis of a Second Reading debate of only 30 minutes.
	It is important to set out the reasons why all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill should not be read on one day. Let us consider the circumstances in which the Government can legitimately push through all the stages of legislation in one day. I understand that in national emergencies, such as those relating to terrorism, or when introducing economic measures that are extremely market sensitive, a swift progression through Parliament is needed. However, the Northern Ireland Bill is not one of those, as the right hon. Member for Neath has conceded. The Bill is a complex piece of legislation that changes the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1978 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Those Acts were not uncontroversial, and amendments to them need proper scrutiny by Members of Parliament.
	Since 1997, only 15 Bills have been pushed through the Commons in all their stages on one day. Let us look at the type of Bill that has gone through and the precedent that that creates for this allocation of time motion. On 4 April 2001, the Elections Bill went through all its stages on one day. That was due to the national crisis caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. On 2 September 1998, parliament was recalled from its summer recess to pass the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill in all its stages as an urgent response to the terrible Omagh bombing. On 19 February 2008, the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill was passed in relation to Northern Rock and therefore needed to be rushed through the Commons. The House sat until midnight on that day.
	None of the exceptional circumstances to which I have just referred applies to the Northern Ireland Bill. If this guillotine motion goes through, the Government will have set a dangerous precedent for curtailing debate and excluding proper parliamentary scrutiny on controversial issues. This is an abuse of Parliament and democracy, and normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod.
	I have a lot of respect for the Secretary of State, but the arguments that he made today were rather weak. The Government have stated that the Northern Ireland Bill needs to pass through this place in one day to fit in with the schedule of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Deputy Leader of the House stated last Wednesday in the Business of the House debate that
	"The House requires speed only because there will be further stages after the Bill completes its passage here—namely, a Bill in the Assembly to establish the department of justice and a resolution by the Assembly, followed by Orders in Council, which must then come before the House."
	However, that is simply not true.
	In the same debate last Wednesday, representatives from both sides of the Northern Ireland divide stated quite clearly that there was no rush for this Bill to go through and that time should be given for proper scrutiny. Moreover, several Northern Ireland Members who also sit on the Northern Ireland Assembly were not aware of any time limit given by the Assembly to the Government. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said that
	"the urgency on this matter seems to be coming entirely from one direction—the Government."
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) stated that:
	"Legislation for the optics, especially to suit a party that is not here, is not the best way for this House to conduct its business."—[ Official Report, 25 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 328, 334-335, 336.]
	It seems to me that the only party that is keen for this Bill to be rushed through is Sinn Fein, which does not even bother to take its seats in this Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Government have not been pushed into rushing something through by one absent party. There are parties in Northern Ireland that take Parliament seriously and that want more time to debate such an important Bill, which will have major consequences for their constituents.
	I wish to praise all the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who take their seats in Parliament, whatever their political persuasion. Their dedication to the cause of peace and stability in Northern Ireland is highly commendable. I also wish to congratulate my Front Bench team, who work tirelessly and effectively. My hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) work extremely hard on the complex task of bringing devolution to Northern Ireland while at the same time ensuring the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
	Another argument why this Bill must be pushed through could be that we lack the space in the parliamentary business calendar to be able to spare any more time to debate it. But we all know that this is one of the lightest Sessions we have ever had. We will sit for only 128 days this year, of which 13 are reserved for private Members' Bills. There have been several occasions in this parliamentary year where debates have collapsed and sittings have ended way before their time limit due to the lack of business. Yesterday the House adjourned at 8.44 pm rather than 10 pm. Only last Wednesday, the business finished at 3.58 pm rather than at 7 pm. Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion.
	So how does this motion fit with the principle of Parliamentary sittings? The current timetabling for parliamentary sitting is broadly based on the Jopling reforms, which encompass three principles. First, the Government must be able to get their business through and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of Government and to improve or oppose legislation, as they think fit. Thirdly, Back Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern to their constituents.
	If the Executive were to come to their senses at this stage and agree to my amendment that there should be at least one day's gap between Second Reading and Committee and Third Reading, all three principles would be met. That is exactly what amendment (a) would do. Clearly, the second and third principles are not being met. It is apparent to all that Parliament has more than enough time in this, the lightest of parliamentary years, to allow for separate days so that MPs have time to debate and scrutinise the Bill. Committee and Third Reading should not be on the same day as Second Reading, as required by the motion. My suggestion is that Second Reading should be held on one Wednesday—today—and that Committee and Third Reading should be held on a subsequent Wednesday.

Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend hold hard a minute? Wednesday is the day when the Northern Ireland Committee always meets. We have lost one day today and we do not want to lose another. We can hold those debates on Tuesday, Thursday or Monday, but not on Wednesday.

Peter Bone: I apologise for my error. Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend.
	Standing Orders have been ignored today to rush through all stages of the Bill. Standing Orders have been developed over a long period of time so that the Executive cannot abuse their power. The Government seem to have no regard for Parliament or its procedures, which have been in place for so long. They want to microwave legislation. The motion, unbelievably, takes up four pages of the Order Paper to undo all the protections for debate provided to Members of this House. It is 17 paragraphs long with many sub-paragraphs. If it contains so much detail, should we not be suspicious of the intent?
	It always makes me very nervous when it is said that the procedure is agreed through the usual channels. That is not acceptable, in my view, and it does nothing to promote transparency in parliamentary procedure. That is why I have argued for a long time for a business Committee made up of senior Members from both sides of the House to manage parliamentary procedure and the legislative progress. If that Committee had been in existence today, I would not have had to move amendment (a).
	The Northern Ireland Bill is not a straightforward and simple piece of legislation that can be pushed through on the nod. It is a complex piece of legislation that will have historic significance for the people of Northern Ireland. Even if it were not complex and controversial, it should still not be hurried through in a day. Normal procedure should apply. It is unacceptable that the Government, who state their pride in working for so long to facilitate peace in Northern Ireland, should now want to rush this through.
	A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. One major role of MPs is to hold the Executive to account. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, when he was Leader of the House, summed it up perfectly when he stated in a Business of the House debate:
	"Indeed, the role of Parliament—both sides of the House as well as the other place—is to scrutinise Government proposals and to make its own decisions about the way in which matters are handled. My hon. Friend will recall from the time when he was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and I was Home Secretary that, although it was sometimes uncomfortable, there was not a Bill that was not improved as a result of scrutiny."—[ Official Report, 16 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 138.]
	It is a shame that the Government do not agree with him.
	There is no doubt that one of an MP's most important roles—I would argue that it is the most important—is to hold the Executive to account. The motion removes that role, and it is appalling that the Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament, and I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of Parliament's power to scrutinise and debate has been a long-adopted approach by this Executive, and the motion is a step too far.
	The situation that we, as parliamentarians, find ourselves in is well explained in the conclusion of the Modernisation Committee's report, "Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the Back Bench Member", which is extremely relevant to the motion and amendment (a):
	"It is probably true that Parliament is more effective at sustaining an executive than holding it to account. There is clearly an inherent tension between these roles and it is inevitably difficult to sustain a perfect balance...In the final analysis, the strength and vitality of the House of Commons and Parliament as a whole depends upon the efforts and behaviour of its Members and the emphasis they place on their scrutiny and accountability role."
	In this motion we see the complete imbalance of parliamentary power.

Kate Hoey: I have heard enough of what the hon. Gentleman has said to agree with him on this point. Northern Ireland should be back in the UK fold of normality, and we should do things the same way as we do everything else, but we are rushing the Bill through in one day. It seems reasonable to say that there is plenty of time to do this—we have been waiting a long time for the Bill, and these things might not happen for some time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are sending out absolutely the wrong signal and suggesting that Northern Ireland is still something different, special and almost terrible and that we need to treat its legislation in a different way?

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I agree entirely and I do not see why the Government are doing this, as it sends out the wrong signals. There is something behind what the Secretary of State said. Perhaps it is the pressure from Sinn Fein—I do not know—but something outside this House is driving the Government to take this extraordinary measure. They have not come clean on what that is, so I think that they should not be allowed to steamroller through the Bill.
	Individual Members of Parliament place a great deal of importance on scrutiny and accountability, and a problem arises when the Executive try to deny us that right. The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. The Government are asking MPs to table amendments before we have had the chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can an MP properly table amendments, when they have not heard the detail and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 26 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a 53-page document and a 20-page document—I have them with me—on additional information relating to the Bill. Those documents were produced only yesterday. How can those documents and amendments realistically be scrutinised, if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an indication of the complexity of the matter that the Northern Ireland Office and the Bill team, who are a very capable bunch of lawyers, had to have two goes at getting the documents right?

Peter Bone: I am very grateful for that intervention. It was extraordinary that those two documents, which have the same title, were produced. I understand that the House authorities demanded that they should be produced. It is impossible to study the documents and the amendments and to deal with them all today. It is a farce.
	The whole point of parliamentary procedure and the reason why legislation is not, as a matter of course, passed through in all its stages on one day is that we need to ensure the fullest accountability and debate. Why do the Government feel the need to abuse their power by limiting scrutiny? It is disgraceful that MPs are not allowed the time to scrutinise and debate such an important Bill. It is high time that the Executive stopped their abuse of power and their attempts to dilute parliamentary procedure.
	I believe that I have now shown that every possible reason the Government might have for pushing through the Bill in one day is not valid— [ Interruption. ] I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), as I shall not be able to continue for another two hours, but I hope that I have articulated the reasons why Parliament should be given adequate time for debate and scrutiny. There is no reason as far as I can see why there cannot be gap of at least one day between this Bill's Second Reading and its Committee stage and Third Reading.
	In conclusion, I refer the House to the view of Professor Dawn Oliver of University college London expressed in a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee:
	"Does scrutiny of legislation matter? Yes, it is absolutely vital that legislation be carefully and clearly drafted, that it fits with the existing law, that it does not override important constitutional principles and human rights without Parliament realising that it is doing so and doing so deliberately. These are not party political issues, they are to do with respect for and workability of the legal system, respect for constitutional values, international obligations, human rights and so on, which ought to be above party.
	I urge the Government to remember that.
	If I have the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to pressing amendment (a) to a vote.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I agree with everything that he said, with two exceptions. First, he said that we would be creating a precedent if we let the Secretary of State get away with this, but unfortunately he is wrong. The precedent was created before, and the current Secretary of State is only the latest in a long line of serial offenders. One of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whom I love very much, is in the Chamber, but he was also guilty of the same thing when he was a Secretary of State. It is time that we in this place stood up and said, "Thus far, and no further!"
	I disagree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough on a second point, in this case his congratulatory remarks to the spokesperson for the UCUNF. I think that the name Ulster Conservatives and Unionists—New Force is the latest title for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman outlined how he protested last Wednesday about how the Bill was going to be dealt with, but I can give him only five marks out of 10, because he failed to fulfil what I consider to be the duty of an Opposition Member. He should have objected and joined me in my protest, as the problem goes beyond our being asked to deal with the Bill in one day.
	Some hon. Members may be bored stiff by these matters but—short of running naked across Parliament square—I am not sure what more I can do to draw attention to them. However, the hon. Member for Wellingborough did not join me in protesting about the fact that we were going to deal with the Bill all in one day. Front Benchers from the main parties are both the same, and they are both to blame.

Peter Hain: Given my hon. Friend's threat to run naked, I am rather worried about his expression of love for me. However, I plead guilty to being a serial offender on Bills such as this, because that approach is what has brought the immense progress that has been achieved in Northern Ireland.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is incredible that successive Secretaries of State should suggest that the whole process would collapse if the House of Commons were not to deal with Bills like this in a single day. That is breathtaking in the extreme.

Peter Robinson: I support the Bill, but I also support allowing more time to discuss it. The critical feature for me, my colleagues and the whole Unionist community is the issue of confidence before policing and justice powers are devolved. Does it grow confidence to deal with this Bill in the constitutionally tacky way proposed today? The Government's approach will reduce confidence among the unionist community, because it will probably cause many of the good proposals in the Bill to go unreported.

Andrew MacKinlay: The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) speaks for his people, and he is correct about Parliament's duties and expectations. One reason for having a Committee stage is to fine-tune legislation, not to oppose it. A Committee stage allows us to probe and understand the problems and to consider whether all eventualities have been taken into account. It also enables us to indicate and flag up any omissions in the Bill.

Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Bills passed by this House in relatively recent years—such as those relating to dangerous dogs or Dunblane—were based on consensus and yet were dreadful pieces of legislation?

Andrew MacKinlay: That is absolutely so. If we make legislation in haste, we make it badly. Moreover, the approach adopted by the Government can be the thin end of the wedge, as other Ministers on other occasions can say that it is imperative to pass a Bill.
	I return to my central point, which is that, if the many hours spent in Committee or on Report are to have any purpose or meaning, they must ensure that we avoid any unforeseen elephant traps in a piece of legislation by crafting it in the best possible way. That is precisely what we are not doing by seeing this Bill through all its stages in one day. Restricting all stages of this Bill to one day is also an abdication of our responsibility. The House of Lords will devote two days to the Bill, and its Members will be aware that the House of Commons did not really look at some of the issues that will be touched on by speakers later this afternoon.
	In his brief remarks earlier, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) touched on something that I had not totally understood. I endeavoured to grapple with the detail and complexity of the Bill in order to table some amendments that I hoped would either improve the proposals or give us greater understanding of what the draftsmen intended. However, it looks as though I did not take full cognisance of one of the points that the hon. Gentleman referred to—that is, what will happen if there is a failure to agree.
	I also notice that our friends in the Social Democrat and Labour party have tabled amendments that relate to the judiciary rather than to policing. I want to examine the inferences and implications of those amendments, but there is no opportunity to do so. This Bill, which is being passed in one day, would, if it related to England and Wales, be pored over by this House and by another place. As a result, errors might occur that could have serious consequences in a particular case, and they might also cause additional and unforeseen political confrontation some way into the future.
	Reference has been made to the two documents that the House authorities, to their eternal credit, squeezed out of the Northern Ireland Office. However, those documents arrived too late. I understand that the correct technical term is to say that the documents are covered by the "Keeling schedules". In 1937, the then Speaker, Sir Edward Keeling, sent a memo to the Prime Minister of the day, saying that they had to ensure that the House of Commons was fully acquainted with the consequences of legislation that amends other primary legislation in detail. That memo set an extremely important precedent for the documents before us today. However, a glance through the Keeling schedules relating to this afternoon's business reveals the complexity of the task before us and makes it clear that we need to make cross-references. Unfortunately, the two documents to which I have referred arrived too late for all that.
	The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland party has not been mentioned yet this afternoon. I think that the Liberal Democrat party may act as its agent in this place, and I look forward to hearing the Alliance party's opinion about these matters. However, it would have been good to have time to discuss the Keeling schedules and some of the amendments with the Alliance party itself, as one might say that it is the unspoken elephant in the room. I may be wrong, but I think that the intention is that someone from the Alliance party—perhaps they have been anointed—will occupy the Ministry of Justice post. It would certainly be sensible if hon. Members in the Commons at least had the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments in detail with members of that party. That, of course, has been denied to us.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman be very careful in what he says? The elephant could jump down from the Gallery.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is interesting that they made an effort to be here. I do not want to labour my point, but this really is a bad day for Parliament, and we should be ashamed of ourselves, collectively, if we approve the railroading through of the Bill. No doubt the Secretary of State will say, "This is a one-off," but it is not. Unless we give the Government aggravation, the same thing will happen time and again. It is not a Northern Ireland issue, but a United Kingdom issue. It is about the veracity and diligence of this Parliament. I am not prepared to acquiesce in such railroading by my silence.

Alistair Carmichael: As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I unexpectedly find myself designated the spokesperson—

Andrew MacKinlay: The agent.

Alistair Carmichael: —the agent for elephants, whether in the room or elsewhere. I look forward to a day when the elephants might gain membership of this House and speak for themselves. If I live to be 100, I shall never understand the logic that the Government employ in drafting timetable motions. We see on today's Order Paper that consideration of the allocation of time motion can last for up to three hours. The entire time available for consideration of that motion and Second Reading is four hours so, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) pointed out, it is quite possible that if we used the three hours, and there was then a Division, we would have significantly less than an hour for the Second Reading of a constitutional Bill. It is because it is a constitutional Bill that all stages are, quite properly, to be taken on the Floor of the House.
	Thereafter, we are allowed two hours for debate in Committee and on Third Reading. I consider that wholly inadequate. Given the number and range of amendments tabled and selected for debate in Committee, it is pretty clear to me that we will not have anything like a Third Reading debate; we will not even have a proper Committee stage. If ever there was a Bill that needed a proper Third Reading, this is it. Third Reading debates are pretty much a poor shadow of what they used to be. If there is a Division on Second Reading, we Liberal Democrats will support the Bill. Thereafter, in Committee, we will consider a number of significant amendments, which we will seek to press to a Division. If those amendments are not accepted, my party may well wish to reconsider our support for Third Reading, but we will be denied that opportunity, and we will not be alone in that.
	It is pretty clear that we are being asked to railroad through legislation, and although there may be a degree of urgency, it is not, by any definition, an emergency. As a consequence, we will create a procedure that is fundamentally flawed and defective. I have previously been involved with Northern Ireland Bills that were dealt with in one day in the House. We always co-operated in those cases. I think back to my involvement with the Bill that had to be brought forward to cancel Assembly elections—I think that was in 2004. That was clearly an emergency; this is not. Even if we insisted on sticking to the Secretary of State's timetable—he says that the timetable must allow consultation in Northern Ireland to start in the middle of March—it would still be possible for us to have two days' full consideration of the Bill.
	Tomorrow, the House has an Adjournment debate. On Monday, we have a second day on estimates. There is absolutely no reason why we could not put that business off to some other day, and instead deal with the Bill then. In fact, we should do so. This is not just about the progress of the Bill, but about this House taking responsibility for, and control of, its own business. Bills will be railroaded through in this way for as long as we continue to allow it to happen. The situation will never get any better.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman makes a most excellent point about Monday. Would it not serve the interests of the Bill, of Northern Ireland and of the House of Commons above all, if the Secretary of State dispatched his Parliamentary Private Secretary to speak to the Leader of the House, to try to arrange a second day for the Bill on Monday? Then we could finish our debate on the allocation of time motion, get on to the substance of the Bill, continue until 7 o'clock, and do the thing properly.

Alistair Carmichael: Yes, that is an eminently sensible approach. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), the Secretary of State's PPS, is keen to have the exercise, and is more than fit for the task. It appears that the logic—I use the term in the loosest possible sense—that the Government bring to the timetable is that the amount of time available should be inversely proportionate to the political substance of the debate. That is wrong, and if the House accepts that logic, we do ourselves, and the people of Northern Ireland, no favours.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who said that he did not understand the logic of Government timetabling. I am not sure that I understand the logic of the official Opposition, who seem to support the motion. I may be wrong, but it is amazing if it is true that they will not support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I am shocked by that.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Lady about the Conservative Opposition's view on the subject, but I am afraid I can easily see the logic of the Government's position: it is crudely to bully the House into acquiescence, to ensure that they can steamroll through legislation in this abbreviated fashion.

Kate Hoey: I would have made more or less the same comment, but the hon. Gentleman puts it slightly better than I would have done—although I would perhaps have put it more tactfully.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady may have missed my earlier comments. The original plan, which was appalling, was to publish the Bill last Monday and to have Second Reading on Wednesday. Through the usual channels, we got an extra week, but I have said that the situation is highly unsatisfactory. I am in total agreement with virtually every Member who has spoken, but because the Government have a majority—I am being completely brutal and practical—every minute that we speak eats into the time for Second Reading and, more importantly, consideration of the amendments. I have not made any statement on how we will be voting.

Kate Hoey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but that is a little play with words. We are talking about serious issues—not just to do with democracy and the House, but the issues in the Bill. I really do not see that an extra 12, 13 or 14 minutes spent on a Division will make that much difference. One or two of my colleagues have been muttering about time wasting, and have said that the longer we go on for, the less time there is for debate. I am fed up with that attitude; it is almost blackmailing, if I can use that word, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is blackmailing, almost implying it is our fault that we will not have a great debate, because we are all talking about the guillotine motion. The Secretary of State and the Government should have understood that it would cause problems if they sought to get a guillotine motion passed so that they could get the whole Bill through the House in one day. They should have understood that a lot of people would want to make their views known. Unless we all speak for just 10 seconds, that will inevitably take time. Moreover, as the debate proceeds, those who may not have intended to speak are more likely to wish to do so, and we will end up with a very short time indeed.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Does she accept that if my amendment were accepted, Second Reading would continue today, so it would not be lost, and all that is necessary is for the Secretary of State to agree with the amendment?

Kate Hoey: In my own way I was getting round to saying precisely that. The Prime Minister may not be in the country, but I hope that at some stage someone will make it clear to him that the way this matter has been handled will lead to all sorts of problems for the legislation in Northern Ireland. Many of the parties have held different views on devolution on these difficult issues, but gradually a consensus is developing on what should happen and how it should happen. The last thing that people in Northern Ireland need is to feel that they and their politicians are being patronised as a result of the way this Bill is being pushed through in such a short time. What matters is the confidence of people in Northern Ireland. The idea that the only way to move the process forward—the great phrase that has become the mantra of so many Front-Bench spokesmen—is by driving a coach and horses through the usual way we deal with business in the House is shameful.
	The Secretary of State must understand the anger that this is causing. There is no need for this to be happening. We have time next week to get this Bill through without having to go to these lengths. If we are serious about Northern Ireland coming into the political arena with a normalisation of politics there, we must treat Northern Ireland legislation in the normal way. There were times when that was not possible, and at various times we all had to vote for measures that we did not want to see dealt with so quickly but which were important and necessary. But this measure is not so urgent that it cannot be dealt with in the normal way. As well as appealing to the Secretary of State to listen to what has been said, to change his mind and to allow Second Reading to be dealt with today, and to come back with a different timetable, I plead with the official Opposition not to take the line that they have chosen, and to come out and vote solidly to show that they believe that this approach is wrong. If something is wrong, we must vote against it.

Sammy Wilson: I have listened to the arguments from both Front-Bench spokesmen, but I am unconvinced by the Secretary of State's argument that there is an urgency here, or by the urgings of the shadow spokesman that we should have less debate on the programme motion and more on the amendments. I remind him that as we are not members of his new force, we do not feel under any obligation to take orders or commands from him.
	As the Secretary of State has made clear, much of the Bill has been discussed with Assembly Members and parties, and we are largely in agreement with its main thrust. But just because the Assembly has agreed it, and just because Members in another Administration in part of the United Kingdom have agreed it, that does not mean that this House should not have the opportunity to scrutinise it. Eventually it is this House that will take ownership of it and have its imprint on it. Therefore, Members of this House, who have not had the opportunity to debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly but who will be held accountable for the Bill, should have the opportunity properly to debate the issues now.
	The Secretary of State said that all he wished to do was to give form to the Assembly's wishes. but there was no sense from Northern Ireland politicians that the measure had to be dealt with post-haste or today, or that it had to be in place by a certain date at the end of March. Assembly Members are quite relaxed about it. As a number of hon. Members have already pointed out, the passing of this legislation will not bring about the devolution of policing and justice tomorrow anyway. We wish to see the devolution of policing and justice, and we wish to put that on the record, but we have always insisted that it must be done against the background of community support and confidence—

Patrick Cormack: And trust.

Sammy Wilson: Indeed. That is the only way that the devolution of policing and justice will work in Northern Ireland. If there is an attempt to force it, all the problems that hon. Members have described, such as the danger of collapse, are likely to occur. We wish to work towards a situation where there is trust. Of course we want these powers devolved, but only in that context. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, there is great danger in pushing legislation through the House, particularly since the Unionist parties are not asking for it, the SDLP is not asking for it, and even the elephant party is not asking for it, although the description of the Alliance party as an elephant party is stretching the imagination a little. It may be the party of mice, but it is certainly not the party of elephants. Elephants would certainly not reflect their electoral support.
	The only conclusion that one can come to is that if the Secretary of State sees this as urgent, that urgency must have been pressed on him by one party alone, and that is Sinn Fein. If we are to have legislation pushed through the House in an abnormal way, and it is seen to be in response to demands from Sinn Fein, the very confidence and trust that are required to move forward the devolution of policing and justice will be eroded.

Patrick Cormack: Like the on-the-runs legislation.

Sammy Wilson: Like the on-the-runs legislation. The Secretary of State's argument about the demands from the Assembly cannot be used to back up the urgency with which this measure is being pushed through.
	The Secretary of State said that we want to have this measure in place so that we can have the devolution of policing and justice when the Assembly is ready. The Assembly is clearly not ready. Leaving aside the whole issue of trust, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is still considering aspects of policing, not least the police budget and whether we want the devolution of policing and justice when there is a £170 million hole in that budget.

William McCrea: Members of that Committee have acknowledged that the further they go into this issue, the deeper and blacker the hole becomes. That matter must be dealt with forthrightly.

Sammy Wilson: That is the point. If the Secretary of State's argument is that we want the legislation in place for when the Assembly is ready to accept the devolution of policing and justice, there is no indication of that being a cause for urgency from Northern Ireland.
	My next point was raised by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the former Secretary of State, who is not in his place now. He went even further in making the case for why what I have mentioned was essential. He talked about the commitments given at St. Andrews, the fact that Sinn Fein had come on board on policing and supported the police only because of certain commitments on the devolution of policing and justice, and the fact that in the past that kind of method had been used because it was an absolute necessity for progress. If we take the right hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion, we reach the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): it all becomes tantamount to blackmail—"If you do not do this, somehow or other the commitment that Sinn Fein has given to policing will evaporate. It will no longer be prepared to sign up to policing. This is necessary for progress." I am not accusing this Secretary of State of employing that argument; nevertheless, it was employed by those who support the pushing through of this legislation as the Secretary of State is seeking to push it through.
	By and large, we are content with the thrust of this legislation. We are also content that other legislation put in place in this House addresses the fears of people in Northern Ireland and ensures that a Member previously associated with a terrorist organisation, even with acts of terror, could not be the Minister for policing and justice. We are content with all that, but I accept that some Members have difficulty with this legislation, wish to move amendments or, in the case of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), want to use the mechanism available to probe the legislation and ensure that there are no mistakes or weaknesses in it and that any changes to improve it can be made. All that requires that there be proper debate and a proper system to deal with the issues.
	I make one last point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. As a Unionist, I wish Northern Ireland to be treated in the same as any other part of the United Kingdom. That means that Northern Ireland legislation—technical or not, politically important or not, ordinary and mundane or not—should be treated in the same way as legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. We deserve that. In the past, there were excuses. There was what was described as "temporary direct rule" and we used Orders in Council. Those days are past; the Northern Ireland Assembly is dealing with most of the legislation that we were told had to go through in that form.
	The House has no massive time commitments on Northern Ireland legislation. Indeed, what makes it more galling is that there is plenty of time. It is not as if we are being squeezed out because the House has to deal with other issues of such national importance that Northern Ireland has to be dealt with differently. Yesterday the House finished early, and I do not know how many times this Session we have not used up the full allocation of time. It is even more insulting for people in Northern Ireland to find that, when there is time, it cannot be allocated for important legislation that will put in place structures for the administration of policing and justice when it is time for those to be devolved to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State will rethink the position for that reason, because the arguments have been weak and spurious, and because he owes the people of Northern Ireland the same treatment as that received by those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Richard Shepherd: Everyone who has spoken and everyone present in the Chamber wishes Northern Ireland well and hopes that the processes will continue and bring about an ultimate solution that is satisfactory to all the people who live in Northern Ireland.
	I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). They are essential, de minimis amendments—the very least that could be done. The Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) saw the position as merely a technical reissuing of previous guillotine motions.

Owen Paterson: May I clarify the issue again? I am just being brutally practical. Sadly, the Government have control of Parliament; the Executive have the power to decide time. We have some important amendments that we want to introduce and we bitterly regret the position, but the fact is that we will not be able to explain the amendments in this democratically elected House if we do not have the time. I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's beliefs, and he knows perfectly well how I feel about this. However, I am just being practical this afternoon—as we speak, the Executive have control of the time. I have not said how we will vote on the issue; I have been clear about that. I am just being absolutely practical about the time that could be spent speaking to the amendments.

Richard Shepherd: I do not know whether that is a clarification, but I will accept it for what it was.
	I was not going to come to this point immediately, but the former Secretary of State referred to it and it was explicit in what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said, although not in what the Secretary of State said. Normally, these three-and-a-half-page constructed guillotines are taken automatically by the Executive, who have become so accustomed to them. The guillotine motion has been included in the time for the Second Reading debate. This has been a long-argued case—in respect of almost every Northern Ireland Bill, too. It behoved the Secretary of State's predecessors to say, "If you discuss the process of Parliament and scrutiny, you are taking away from the consideration of the substantive issue before the House." That is an entirely artificial construct. What does it suit? The Secretary of State made no case that this was an absolute emergency that demanded delivery on this day. When asked, the former Secretary of State got perilously close to stating the need for "hit you on the head" guillotine motions in emergency legislation.
	In fact, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was speaking, a piece of paper fluttered on to the Bench, and he kindly allowed me to read it. It said, "Peter—would be helpful if you start to wind up. You've had 20 minutes, eating into debate time." I cannot imagine which Government Whip could have gone as far as to suggest that an hon. Member may not make his case. But that case was not used by the Secretary of State. All the arguments have been presented—in my speech, in those of Labour Members and in those of Members who represent Ireland—[Hon. Members: "Northern Ireland!"] Northern Ireland, I should say. Those arguments have been about why this motion should not constrain the debate on Second Reading.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for exposing the collusion between Conservative and Government Front Benchers on this issue. May I take him back to something that he said earlier, which is very important? The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is de minimis: the minimum. If it were passed, our proceedings would not represent normal consideration of a Bill in this place. The amendment proposes streamlined emergency consideration put into just two days of parliamentary debate. We should not see it as a normalisation of the treatment of Northern Ireland legislation, but merely as something that is not as bad as what the Government are proposing.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman has provided the emphasis on which I was going to build up to a conclusion. He is absolutely right.
	There is no opposition to the substance of the measure before us. As the former Secretary of State said, it is a largely technical matter involving some very important issues that need consideration. It is fairly safe to say that most English and Scottish Members will wish it good will and let the debate take its form, for this is the Parliament of us all. I was hoping not to abuse anyone in this, but simply to ask the Secretary of State to have an urgent word with the business managers. We did not need this motion; it is not necessary. He did not make a case for it, in all fairness, and he knows it. The only person who tried to argue for it was the former Secretary of State, who elided the concepts of technicality, process and emergency in such a way as to try to give a certain sense of urgency. As has been said in this Chamber before, anyone who studied law, as quite a few of us did, will remember from Maine's "Ancient Law" that justice lies in the interstices of procedure. Nothing is a merely procedural matter. It is very important to justify this to those whom we represent, and especially to those who represent the Province that will have to bear this legislation.
	I implore the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to withdraw this motion or, if he cannot do that, to take the de minimis approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

Peter Bone: This has been an interesting debate on the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, we are in a Catch-22 situation: the more time we take, the less time there is for the Second Reading debate. However, if my amendment were successful, we would be able to continue a Second Reading debate for the rest of the day. I hope that when I press it to the vote Government Members will agree to it so that we can move forward.

Shaun Woodward: rose—

Peter Bone: If the Secretary of State wants to agree to it, it may not have to go to a vote; otherwise, I will press it.

Shaun Woodward: I fear that I will have to disappoint the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I hate also to disappoint the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
	Of course, this is more than a procedural matter, albeit that it contains a number of technical issues. I say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that of course we are serious. There is no question but that this is a very serious issue; that is why we are setting about it in this way. I would say to the Conservative shadow spokesman that nothing in the Bill is a surprise. If he had read the report of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which was published six weeks ago, and followed its work, he would have seen that the legislation reflects that work. He would also have noted that the Assembly itself managed not only to pass the debate motion, but to do so with a full debate in a little less than two hours.

Patrick Cormack: I made my argument today in sorrow, not in anger. Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the validity of the points that have been made time and again from all parts of this House—all the Northern Ireland parties represented in this House appear to agree on this—and give us a little more time? We will have two hours to debate the Second Reading of an important Bill. He could make himself a real reputation if he allowed us to continue that debate until 7 o'clock tonight.

Shaun Woodward: Again, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and resist acquiring that particular reputation.
	I ask hon. Members not to divide the House on this issue. I fear that they will do so, but it is obviously a matter for Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) suggested that it would be a bad day for Parliament if we proceeded in the way proposed. I would qualify that by saying that this will be another day when Parliament will have played its part in helping to build a very different Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland based on peace and prosperity. Even if there are disagreements in the House on procedure, this will be a very good day for Parliament. I thank my hon. Friends.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 276.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill—
	 Timetable
	1.—(1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
	 Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall (notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; and
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3.—(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not 40 previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has—
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	 Subsequent stages
	8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	 Reasons Committee
	10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion 90 of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chairman shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	 Miscellaneous
	11.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	(2) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14.—(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the Order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	15.—(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates)—
	(a) at today's sitting, or
	(b) at any sitting at which Lords Amendments to the Bill are, or any further Message from the Lords is, to be considered, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	17.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Northern Ireland Bill

Second Reading

Shaun Woodward: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill will provide an essential stepping stone to the completion of devolution, and it is a tribute to those in Northern Ireland whose political leadership and commitment has turned the peace process into an enduring political process. That political progress has been and continues to be significant, and it is essential that the momentum is maintained. The Bill will ensure that the necessary framework is in place to enable progress towards the transfer of policing and justice powers when that is requested by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Parliament approves the transfer.
	When devolution is complete, we will have arrived at a significant new chapter in our history, with politicians elected in Northern Ireland being fully accountable to the people of Northern Ireland on law and order, and power truly shared. The Bill will play an important part in enabling elected politicians in Northern Ireland to assume their political destiny.
	I recognise that for some the pace of change remains daunting, and of course there is still confidence to be built. However, I believe that we are unanimous in recognising that the peace and prosperity that Northern Ireland enjoys today is a fundamental consequence of the political process. When the St. Andrews agreement was concluded in October 2006, and when the devolved institutions became operational in 2007, it was hoped that there would be sufficient community confidence to allow for the transfer of policing and justice powers by May 2008. The Government committed to do all that we could to ensure that when the Assembly was ready to ask for the transfer of powers, the necessary enabling legislation would be in place.
	The Government had hoped to see stage 2 of devolution completed last May, but community confidence was not ready. On 18 November 2008, significant confidence having been built by their shared leadership, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to say that agreement had been reached on a way forward to enable devolution to be completed. In January 2009, the Committee reported on its deliberations on the devolution of policing and justice powers, and its report was agreed by the Assembly in a cross-community vote. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and the Deputy First Minister, for their outstanding leadership and their determination to work through the problems that stood in the way of further progress towards the peaceful end that everybody seeks.
	The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have asked us for legislation on a critical set of issues, which they set out last November. That request was made also in the AERC report this January. It is for the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly, to decide when to ask for the transfer of powers, and in turn that request is for this House to decide. That is why it is necessary to have the Bill in place now and to expedite its path without undue delay. That pace is not for the convenience of the Government but to ensure that the Assembly has the tools that it needs to take the process that it has created to the next stage. There will be those who say, "But the Assembly is not going to ask for the powers just yet". That may indeed be the case, and it has much work still to do before it can do so, including creating a justice Department and deciding which of the several available models to adopt for the choice and appointment of a Justice Minister.
	Political agreement has often eluded us in Northern Ireland, and its failure has had tragic consequences. However, we have now taken that agreement to a new level of confidence, and we should have the courage to be bold and go forward. Frequently in politics, it is not possible to give everyone everything that they want, when they want it. Such moments demand political courage, and the inspiration of the story of Northern Ireland is that political courage is a quality that has reaped enormous dividends. There was a time, not long ago, when few would have believed that we could have had stage 1 devolution, with a power-sharing Administration in place. There was a time, not so long ago, when few would have believed that we could even entertain the thought of stage 2 devolution of policing and justice. The Bill marks one more step in the transformation of Northern Ireland, and I ask again for the House's co-operation and support in expediting it.
	I turn to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 and schedule 1 provide for the new departmental model proposed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister last November, and set out how that model would operate in the period up to 1 May 2012 if it were the one that the Assembly chose. The new model would consist of a single Minister, nominated by any member of the Assembly, elected by cross-community vote in the Assembly and removed in the same way. As such, the Minister would not count towards the parties' allocation of seats on the Executive using the d'Hondt formula.
	That new model is added to the menu of options already provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. If the Bill is enacted, the Assembly will be able to choose from any one of eight models in setting up a justice Department. Under the terms of the agreement announced by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Assembly will need to reach agreement on the future arrangements for ministerial oversight of the justice Department before 1 May 2012; otherwise, the Department will automatically be dissolved on that date.
	Clause 2 and schedules 2 to 6 deal with the arrangements for judicial appointments and removals. Broadly speaking, they transfer the post-devolution role that had been envisaged for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and, in particular cases, to the Lord Chief Justice and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman. The roles already set out in legislation for Her Majesty, for the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor as her principal Ministers and for Parliament will remain largely unchanged.
	Reflecting the policy that the Assembly should agree on long-term arrangements for judicial appointments by 1 May 2012, schedule 6 will place on the Assembly a requirement to task one of its Committees with reviewing the arrangements put in place by the Bill and with making recommendations before that date. It will also put in place a freeze on new appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission from 1 May 2012, unless and until the Assembly has reached agreement on the future arrangements for judicial appointments and removals. That freeze will not prevent judicial appointments from being made, but it will create a practical incentive to those involved to reach agreement on the way forward.
	Clauses 3 and 4 will make technical amendments to the statute book to prepare the way for the future transfer of policing and justice responsibilities. Clause 3(1) provides that, post-devolution, the function of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in relation to providing guidance on the disclosure of juror information will be split between the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, for national security and terrorism cases, and the devolved Attorney-General for Northern Ireland for all other cases. That reflects the split of functions previously provided for by Parliament in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in respect of many of the Attorney-General's other functions.
	Clause 3(2) provides that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will be a corporation sole, a legal status meaning that the Public Prosecution Service can hold property in its own right. That will not alter the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Public Prosecution Service and the Assembly, as provided for in the 2002 Act.
	The House will have the opportunity later to debate the relationship between the DPP and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, which was debated and agreed on during the passage of the 2002 Act. That Act gave effect to the criminal justice review, which stated, at paragraph 4.162, that
	"in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, we believe that this independence should be further strengthened, by ensuring that the relationship between the Attorney General and the head of the prosecution service, while containing elements of oversight, is consultative and not supervisory. In other words, there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters."
	Critically, the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland went on:
	"Our impression is that in some other common law jurisdictions the relationship between Attorney and prosecutor works well in practice and that the independence of the prosecutor in decision making is respected; but ultimately, if there were disagreement between the Attorney and the prosecutor on an individual case, then in law the Attorney's will would probably prevail."
	Crucially, the review said:
	"We do not believe that such an arrangement would be suitable in the Northern Ireland context."
	It might help the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), if I remind him what was said by his noble and learned Friend Lord Mayhew, one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a former Attorney-General. During the passage of the 2002 Act, he said:
	"Given the highly charged atmosphere of Northern Ireland—to use a well-chosen word that appears in the review—it is important that this enormously invasive prosecution arm of the state should be exercised in Northern Ireland by an official who is entirely independent. That is a departure from the current system in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2002; Vol. 636, c.CWH93.]
	I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman will find his noble Friend's words persuasive when he considers his—very well-intentioned, I am sure—amendment. Equally, in the light of the information that we are beginning to discuss together, I hope that he will perhaps see why, on balance, the criminal justice review reached its decision after careful consideration and why his hon. Friend said what he said.
	Clause 4 extends the scope of the order-making power in section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to provide for the possibility that Executive functions may be devolved even where the legislative competence is to remain reserved. That would provide Parliament, in due course, with greater flexibility to ensure that practical responsibility for functions sits at the most appropriate level, while still keeping legislative competence for that matter reserved to Westminster.
	Let us be clear about what the Bill is not. It is not a Bill that will devolve policing and justice. Parliament has already set out the arrangements for that, in section 4 of the 1998 Act, which depends on the triple lock, whereby a motion requesting devolution needs to be tabled in the Assembly by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. After that, the motion would need to be approved on a cross-community vote in the Assembly, and then the Secretary of State would bring forward transfer orders to Parliament in Westminster for approval and debate. The Bill will not impose devolution on a majority if they later choose not to exercise that power.

Christopher Fraser: Does the Secretary of State accept that the costs of setting up a new system run into hundreds of millions of pounds and that there is a further £70 million funding shortfall across the agencies involved in the process? Does he accept those figures, and what implications does he think they will have for the Assembly, which will inevitably be required to plug the gap?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that I do not accept those figures. Northern Ireland had—[Hon. Members: "Higher!"] It is always pleasing to take part in the Dutch auction of Opposition Members. I do not accept those figures. I begin with the premise that in the comprehensive spending review, policing and justice in Northern Ireland had a very good settlement. There are considerable historic reasons why Northern Ireland demands such a settlement. This is in no way to question the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or any of the other agencies there, but many chief constables look at the settlement achieved by the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland with a great deal of jealousy. I say that with huge respect for the work that is done, but the fact is that there is one police officer in Northern Ireland for every 215 to 220 people, whereas in my constituency in Merseyside, the numbers are dramatically different and, I regret to say, we have extremely high crime rates.

William McCrea: rose—

Shaun Woodward: I will give way in a moment.
	Despite the considerable work that is done, the fact of the matter is that the settlement in Northern Ireland was a good settlement.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) asked about additional requests that have been made for money. As a matter of course, new pressures might arise following the making of the CSR. We are asking other police forces across the United Kingdom to deal with new demands by reordering their priorities, not giving them more money. Part of what Northern Ireland must do, in being normal, is to do the same as any other police force in any other part of the United Kingdom. There may be issues—I say "may", because it is not a matter of fact or record that they can at this stage be described as justifiable pressures for new money—that need to be resolved. That is why the Prime Minister has asked Jeremy Heywood to chair a committee that will involve officials from Northern Ireland, my office and the offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers, as well as civil servants from Departments here, coming together to look at the so-called needs for extra money.
	In this economic climate, people need to be sensible and realistic. I understand why people will make demands. However, at the same time, they need to recognise that those issues may not be unique to Northern Ireland, that some of the pressures being felt there now are being felt by other police forces around the country and that Northern Ireland, whether it is under the Secretary of State or its own Minister for Justice in a devolved Department, will be expected to adhere to the same responsibilities as anybody else would. I expect people to make the case, but it does not follow that because people make a case, that case will automatically be met. There is some hard work to be done. I am grateful to the First and Deputy First Ministers and to others who are taking part in the important process that is now under way and which has its first meeting later today.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Some issues remain to be resolved before devolution can take place, one of which is the need to recognise the valiant contribution of the part-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve in Northern Ireland over the period of the troubles. I know that the Minister of State is currently reviewing that, but will the Secretary of State give a commitment that before devolution takes place his Department will properly recognise the contribution that those men and women made to safeguarding the entire community in Northern Ireland? Many of them paid with their lives and many still carry the injuries that they suffered during that campaign.

Shaun Woodward: I will of course use this opportunity to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says about the work and the extraordinary bravery of those people. However, as he also rightly said, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking at those matters. Tempted though I might be to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question directly, it is precisely right that my hon. Friend does the work with his review. Just as the right hon. Gentleman and the First Minister have pressed their case previously, I am sure that they will continue to press it. Indeed, it concerns one of a number of issues that I am sure we will need to work through together in the coming months.
	I said that it was important to be clear about what the Bill is not. Crucially, it will not decide the model for the new Department of Justice; rather, it adds one more model to the menu. It remains for the Assembly to choose which model it wants to pursue. What the Bill does is give legal expression to the work of elected politicians in Northern Ireland. In considering the Bill, we should have due regard to the work and wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland and those who produced the Assembly and Executive Review Committee report.
	In addition to enabling the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland to be realised, we should also send a clear political message today to the small numbers of criminals in Northern Ireland who do not want to see peace and stability on the streets. There are criminal groups styling themselves as republicans for whom the idea of political progress, shared power and fully devolved institutions is abhorrent; they do not want to see that. Regrettably, we always feared that this would be the case. We also feared that, at the moment at which great political progress was being made in Northern Ireland, they would try to seize such an opportunity.
	Regrettably, we have seen increased activity by this very small number of dissidents in the past few months, and it has been targeted particularly, but not only, at police officers. The PSNI will need to work incredibly closely with the community to ensure that the response to this activity, while increased, is also proportionate. This is not like the old days. This involves a group of people who have absolutely no support and who are condemned by everyone across the board. They thrive in an atmosphere of fear and in the vacuum that they hope to create if the political process can be stalled. Today in this House, the Bill provides an opportunity yet again to send a clear message to those who do not want political progress, who wish to stall the work of the people and the political parties of Northern Ireland, and who wish to frustrate and challenge the courage of those who are leading their political parties and Northern Ireland to a different place.
	The message that this House sends, in supporting the Bill, is that the political process is winning, that it has transformed Northern Ireland, and that if we allow this transformation to continue to its logical conclusion, so that those elected in Northern Ireland become responsible for policing and justice in the months ahead, there will be no clearer signal to these people that, while they might try hard and while they might pose a threat to some, we hope that they will never have the chance to succeed, and we will never let them succeed. They are criminals, and criminal threats will never be allowed to halt legitimate processes. This House, in supporting the Bill, will send an unequivocal message that politics in Northern Ireland is winning.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the main provisions in the Bill and the Government's rationale for bringing it before the House today. I also thank him for giving the Opposition early sight of the legislation, and for the helpful manner in which his officials have answered our questions.
	The last Conservative Government began the peace process, and their work was built on by the current Labour Government. As I said in the debate on the programme motion, it has always been our policy in opposition to set party politics aside on issues concerning Northern Ireland, and broadly to support the Government in their approach to the peace process and devolution. In doing so, we have not given the Government a blank cheque, however. While trying to be as supportive as possible, we have made constructive and detailed criticisms.
	At the outset, I reconfirm that we emphatically support the Belfast agreement and the current devolved institutions that followed on from it. We would like to see the institutions that were established by ensuing agreements working effectively for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. We have therefore always supported the eventual devolution of criminal justice and policing, when the conditions were right and once the proposed model for devolution had the support of all communities. Devolution of criminal justice and policing was, after all, envisaged in the Belfast agreement and re-affirmed in the joint declaration of 2003, and subsequently at St. Andrews in 2006.
	Thanks to the efforts of the last two Governments, Northern Ireland has been transformed. However, when considering the Bill today, we should remember that the current circumstances are not normal. Although the horrific levels of violence experienced during the troubles are now largely behind us, there is still a real threat of brutality from dissident republican groups and so-called loyalist paramilitaries, as the Secretary of State has just mentioned. The dissidents have openly stated that they intend to kill a police officer.

Denis Murphy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the main, the fact that the dissident republicans have not been able to kill a policeman is down to excellent police work, and that it is thanks to Sir Hugh Orde and his team that those people have been contained so effectively? Does he also agree that the co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana is now helping to contain the dissident republicans?

Owen Paterson: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments; I am about to make similar comments myself. I particularly agree with him about the collaboration with the Garda, which I have noticed in the border areas.
	The year before last, two officers had lucky escapes in Londonderry and Dungannon. In more recent months, the attacks in Craigavon, the rocket attack in Lisnaskea and the bomb in Rosslea thankfully did not succeed. As recently as February, a 300 lb bomb was found in Castlewellan. So-called loyalist groups also pose a real danger to police officers. It is disgraceful that they have not decommissioned weapons as we approach the 11th anniversary of the Belfast agreement. A police officer was shot in the back in Carrickfergus, and of the 20 officers forced from their homes in the past 12 months, five were driven out by loyalists. The above list is far from comprehensive, and I pay tribute to the bravery of all those involved at every level of the police and security services for minimising the damage that these violent criminals wish to inflict on the law-abiding majority. As we debate the Bill, we should all remember the dedication of these public servants.
	Some dissident groups have moved into drug crime, and this continues the violence. Masked men who shot a man dead in Londonderry in February were thought to be dissident republicans involved in drugs. Fuel smuggling is estimated to cost the Exchequer £100 million a year. In some areas, both dissidents and republicans are, amazingly, working together to smuggle fuel.
	The Assembly should remember, when deciding whether to use the option provided by the Bill, that normal policing is extremely difficult in these circumstances and that—despite Patten recommendation 55, which states that police cars should be substituted in place of armoured Land Rovers—more and more patrols are forced to travel in armoured vehicles due to the rise in dissident violence. The dissident threat has also led to a huge increase in police overtime, with the result that £24.5million has had to be taken from this year's budget to pay for last year. There are suggestions that the Policing Board is starting the new financial year £50 million in the red. The PSNI needs to save £263 million by 2011. Proposed police station closures are unpopular, the information technology budget has had to be reduced, and police overtime will be cut by 51 per cent. over three years.
	We are therefore discussing the Bill in the context of further looming pressures on the budget. There are more than 2,000 claimants for hearing loss, which could cost a further £100 million. I have even heard reports that that could rise to £400 million. The historical enquiries team has had to cut staff. The current established figure of 7,500 full-time officers has not been achieved, and plans for police community support officers have been put on hold for three years. On the positive side, great progress has been made in increasing Catholic recruitment, which is up to 25 per cent., and on target for 30 per cent. by March 2011.
	In his winding-up speech, will the Minister please confirm that police pay, pensions and conditions will continue to be set nationally after devolution? Will he confirm how inquiries into the past will be paid for in future? Who will pay for any litigation that flows from those inquiries? Could he give us an overall appraisal of the current and future financial position of the PSNI?
	When the Assembly comes to debate the timing of devolution, it should be aware of the extremely difficult conditions in which the police continue to operate, and the serious financial consequences of that. I am also conscious that a number of politicians in Northern Ireland take the view that Stormont should be allowed to settle down and resolve issues such as education before taking on the additional burden of policing and criminal justice. In my opinion, however, that is strictly a matter for the Assembly.
	The background to the Bill is that the PSNI is already the most accountable police force in the world. The Chief Constable is widely respected across all parts of the community and is self-evidently non-political. He reports to a Policing Board that has representatives from all political parties, and there is further scrutiny by the police ombudsman, the district policing partnerships and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Despite the ultimate responsibility resting with the Secretary of State, there is already significant involvement by representatives across all the community in Northern Ireland.
	It is important to stress—as the Secretary of State did—that the Bill does not deliver the devolution of criminal justice and policing. That could have been triggered at any time since the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which gave effect to the Good Friday agreement, had there been cross-community support for it. Since then, a number of models for the devolution of criminal justice and policing have been proposed. There are currently seven such models. This Bill creates an eighth model, following exhaustive negotiations in the Northern Ireland Assembly, primarily between the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein. That resulted in a report to the Assembly, which was published in January. We believe that locally elected politicians should ultimately be responsible for such matters, but which model is chosen should be a matter for the parties in the Assembly to agree.
	At the same time, we have always insisted that powers should be transferred from this Parliament only when three criteria have been satisfied: first, that all parties represented in the Executive are committed to pursuing their objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means; secondly, that all parties fully support, in word and deed, the criminal justice system, including the police and the courts; and, thirdly, that such a transfer of powers commands support across the community, as expressed through Northern Ireland's political representatives. In our view, that is not something that should be imposed according to an arbitrary deadline or timetable, so I welcome the fact that nothing in the Bill alters the existing triple lock on the transfer of powers.
	The mechanism for transferring policing and justice in the 1998 Act remains unchanged. Before devolution takes place, it must have the consent of the First Minister, a majority of designated Unionists and nationalists in the Assembly and of both Houses of Parliament. I give a guarantee that any future Conservative Government will fully uphold that triple lock while respecting the decision of the Assembly.
	In addition, we have always made it clear that any devolution of policing and justice powers must preserve the operational independence of the Chief Constable and his officers; the independence of the judiciary must also be guaranteed. Those are cardinal principles that cannot be compromised. There must be no question of allowing political interference in such matters in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
	We support many features of the Bill, particularly the changes to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in respect of appointments to judicial offices. In our view, it is right and sensible to give to the Lord Chief Justice the powers originally envisaged as being exercised by the First and Deputy First Ministers. One of our concerns when the 2002 Act was passing through Parliament was about the potential for politicisation of certain judicial appointments, but these changes go some way to allaying our fears.
	We are not happy, however, that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is, in the words of the explanatory note,
	"independent of a 'parent' department within the Northern Ireland departmental system".
	I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's comments, and we will study the text that he referred to in detail, but we believe that devolution of criminal justice and policing would actually be strengthened if the DPP were superintended by the Attorney-General, who, according to the 2002 Act, may participate in the proceedings of the Assembly. We believe that the Attorney-General should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
	I am confident that our amendments, if approved, would strengthen the devolution of justice, making the DPP answerable to a key figure who is accountable in turn to the Assembly. It would also give the DPP a shield to protect him on occasions when he has to deal with very contentious prosecutions. We have tabled a number of other amendments, including one that would set a time limit of six months on appointing a Justice Minister. That is in no way intended to undermine devolution, but we think that, given the security situation in Northern Ireland, it is not acceptable for criminal justice and policing to continue for an indefinite period without a Minister responsible to a democratic body.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman noticed, but in the Secretary of State's speech, he relied on—without naming them—other common law jurisdictions, which I recall him saying would not be a good formula for Northern Ireland. He did not elaborate. As an aside, I think that that shows that if we had a proper Committee stage, we could probe much further. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking the Secretary of State to tell us when he concludes the debate what jurisdictions the Government consulted and what those jurisdictions were asked. It would be interesting to know. I follow much of what the hon. Gentleman says; he is making a powerful point.

Owen Paterson: I am sure that the Secretary of State will have noted those comments and will reply later. We think that there should be a limit to the process, so that we have a final full-stop. It would not be sensible to have a Department without a Minister for an indefinite period.
	I am aware that time is short and many other Members wish to speak, so let me summarise our position. We support the devolution of criminal justice and policing, but it is for the Assembly to decide when all parts of the community consider the time to be right. Given the dangerous security situation that is also exacerbating the financial pressures of devolving criminal justice and policing, the Assembly should think long and hard before taking this step. We believe that, should it decide to do so, this model has many merits. It would, however, be much improved if our amendment on the accountability of the DPP were agreed. On that basis, we will support Second Reading this evening.

Mark Durkan: Yet again, we have a Second Reading debate on a Bill that addresses the devolution of justice and policing in Northern Ireland. It comes, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) noted earlier, on top of a torrent of legislation on the same subject—seven previous Acts have touched to some degree on this issue. The reason for having so much legislation is that there has been so much misrepresentation about what the devolution of justice actually means. We have also had a lot of pretence about its imminence in the past, and perhaps there will be more pretence about it now.
	Let us reflect on how this issue has developed over recent years. Sinn Fein used it as an excuse to put off the evil day, as they saw it, when it would have to sign up to policing. It said that it had to have devolution of justice and policing first, so the terms, principles and constructs of the devolution of justice and policing became the be-all and end-all before Sinn Fein could move forward on policing. It was essential to Sinn Fein, because it could say that when it went on the Policing Board, it would have control over the police. The Government—indeed the two Governments—started playing that line and brought us through a chicane of different legislative models and pieces of legislation in order to create landmarks, which were optical illusions to show that significant progress was being made on the road to the devolution of justice and policing. Those optics could then be served up to supporters and the broader public.
	All that created fear and unease within the Unionist community, so parties such as the Democratic Unionist party worked to hold up the devolution of justice and policing with dire warnings about paramilitary control or people with paramilitary records gaining control of the police and the prosecution service, thus creating a lot of unnecessary and undue fears about what the devolution of justice and policing would entail.
	What we need to remember about all this—in fairness, the Secretary of State has made this point in the past, as did his predecessor—is that a significant number of the powers previously exercised by Secretaries of State and the Northern Ireland Office had already been devolved both to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable, and rightly so. Broadly, that worked well and confounded the low expectations of many people.
	We also need to remember that when the devolution of policing and justice comes, whoever or whatever the relevant Minister may be, they will not be in a position to lift the phone and tell the Chief Constable, "Set my people free; go after those people." Ministers will not be able to interfere in prosecutions, judicial considerations or anything else of that nature. Many of the fears have thus been hyped up—apprehensions on the one hand and perhaps false aspirations and ambitions on the other. Any such falsehoods needed to be laid to rest.
	With the devolution of justice and policing, there will be no going back to the political control of the old Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, and there will be no going forward to paramilitary control. Why? Because the protections in the Patten report and the criminal justice review—two reviews set up under the Good Friday agreement—are there to stop it. Sinn Fein knows that, which is why it ended up having to sign up to policing, despite the fact that it had neither the devolution of justice and policing nor even a date for it to happen. At the time, it did not even have the agreement that it now says that it has with the DUP. Its position was indulged for far too long, with all the phoney legislation and other moves of Governments emerging from it. That is why we are back here dealing with the issue yet again today.
	The DUP, of course, knows all about this, too. That is why the current DUP leader, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) told  The Irish Times four and a half years ago that the devolution of justice was "no big move" for Unionists, yet we get it played again and again as though it were the biggest possible move for Unionists. Again, bad management of the process by the Government has allowed the Democratic Unionist party to move from one tactic to another.
	The fact is that devolution of justice and policing will be a threat to nobody and an opportunity for everyone. It will consummate political change and policing change. It will ensure that we complete the suite of devolution in having policing and justice powers alongside all others. It will mean that MLAs will be worthy of the title Members of the Legislative Assembly, because they will be able to legislate on the criminal law alongside other matters and ensure that programmes, policies and budgets across all the services that policing has to deal with, along with other devolved services, can better mesh and engage.

Christopher Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the point on additional costs, which I made earlier to the Secretary of State, and is he as concerned as me that the burden will be put on the Assembly? As the Secretary of State has pointed out, it may have to find its own means to deal with the issue.

Mark Durkan: Yes, we have concerns about that. The Assembly, Members of the Assembly and the Executive face budgetary pressures and will want to show good due diligence for any other responsibilities that they get, so obviously we want to pay attention to the budget. We want to get devolution soon, but we also want to get it right. We want to get it right by budget, right by policing and right by the needs of the justice system. We also want to get it right—the Social Democratic and Labour party makes no apology for this—by the Good Friday agreement and the principle of democratic inclusion, which was enshrined and built into that agreement. We make no apology for trying to get it right in all those areas, but we should not turn this debate into a lobbying exercise on budgetary matters, which need to be pressed elsewhere.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Good Friday agreement a reference to the "ugly scaffolding" that he has talked about on previous occasions and the need to dismantle it?

Mark Durkan: I make no apologies. I used the phrase "ugly scaffolding", as the right hon. Gentleman may remember from when he and I were negotiating the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, on many of the institutional aspects of the agreement, if the truth be told, he had more of a hand in negotiating some of the detail than the former Member for Upper Bann, Lord Trimble. I proudly recall many of the conversations and exchanges that we had.
	We said that we wanted to ensure that some of the provisions of the agreement would be biodegradable so that, as we created a new political environment, some of the artificial protections could be dispensed with by agreement. That is what we look forward to, but we see it happening in the context of a strong and robust Bill of Rights, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party completely oppose. If there is no strong, robust, effective and articulate Bill of Rights providing protections, obviously people will want to hang on to all sorts of protections that are built into the decision-making process.

John Gummer: Will the Assembly not have to take into account the issue of cost when it considers whether it wishes to ask for these powers? Is it in fact not a matter that should be taken into account by this House now? We should be taking into account the nature of what is put before us. As one who has listened carefully to this debate and previous debates, it seems to me that what is before us is a perfectly reasonable answer to the problem.

Mark Durkan: First, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. This is not in itself a budgetary debate, and it is important not to turn the debate on the Bill into a budgetary debate. Secondly, what is before us does not provide an answer to the vexed question of how to provide for the devolution of justice and policing now and how to ensure that we have an enduring political arrangement.
	In opening the debate, the Secretary of State talked about there being an enduring political settlement, but the Bill provides for a justice Department that will not be enduring. It provides for a transitional Department that will exist until 1 May 2012 and which will then dissolve automatically unless the Assembly has agreed before that to make some other arrangement. Hon. Members should consider our experience over the past number of years and the fact that the House—despite all the promises and pretensions of various Secretaries of State as they have introduced and bum-rushed different legislation through this place, saying, "It is absolutely needed and this is the impetus we need to take us over the hill, round the corner and into nirvana,"—has constantly come back to yet more Bills.
	When we were considering one of the previous bits of legislation, I remember telling the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) that he had presented more vacuous models than Hugh Hefner. We still have no end to the models that will have to be presented here.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might encourage all Members to come back to debating the Bill under discussion.

Mark Durkan: I am very much on the subject of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the Bill provides for a ninth model. Indeed, the Secretary of State told us that the Bill with neither impose devolution—nor can it, because the triple lock is still there—nor make this the only model. He said that it adds only one more model to the menu. Of course, people are free to come up with other models if they want to. That is the compelling urgency that we have for this legislation and that is what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) says convinces him that it is a good answer to the problem that we have. It is not.
	We should consider the arrangement that the Bill provides for the appointment of a Minister. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) talked about the Alliance party being the elephant in the room—not in the room, hovering above the room or whatever—and it is clearly no secret that Sinn Fein and the DUP have agreed that, for the purposes of the first Minister with responsibility for justice and policing in the devolved context, the d'Hondt provisions—the provisions of inclusion in the Good Friday agreement—are to be bypassed, abandoned and subverted.
	The agreement deliberately made those provisions, and when we were negotiating it was agreed—I include myself and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) here—that we should not have a situation in which parties could vet and veto each other's ministerial appointments as that would be a recipe for instability and game playing. Yet that is exactly what has been agreed between Sinn Fein and the DUP, and it is exactly what this legislative model provides for.
	I fully understand that the DUP does not want an additional nationalist Minister, which would happen if this were to be done through an additional Minister being appointed under d'Hondt. The DUP does not want a second SDLP Minister, because we might be better up to what it is at in government and elsewhere than Sinn Fein apparently is. Sinn Fein does not want a second SDLP Minister either, but what we have here is legislation that allows for gerrymandering in Northern Ireland 2009.
	The old Stormont regime began in the 1920s by removing the guarantee that was laid down for proportional representation in local government. Then it moved on to remove the guarantee for proportional representation laid down for the Stormont Parliament. This Stormont regime is beginning, with the connivance of the Government, by removing the provisions for proportional representation that the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 laid down for the Executive in Northern Ireland and for ministerial appointments. That is why this is a serious matter. It cannot be a matter of indifference to us, and not just because the SDLP would directly lose out. We would defend this principle if it affected any other party as well, and our record shows that.
	Indeed, I point out to Members the fact that whenever we were debating the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007—when the right hon. Member for Neath, as Secretary of State, produced the eighth model, which said that there could be a Minister and a Deputy Minister elected by the Assembly on a cross-community vote, but specified that those Ministers could come only from the two largest designations—we protested at that exclusion of the Alliance party. We said, "If you are going to depart from the agreement and remove the principle of inclusion, you should not introduce a form of exclusion that has clearly militated against a particular party." Our record on that is clean and it is clear. We want all parties to be treated fairly according to their democratic entitlements, but that is not what the Bill does.
	I do not want to dwell on the issue of who would be the Minister and how the Minister would be appointed, because there are more serious issues in the Bill. Whoever was appointed according to the model in the Bill—and in all likelihood, given the current thinking of the DUP and Sinn Fein, it will not be an SDLP Minister—may stay in office, but can be put out of office at any time. That does not apply to the other Ministers, who can be put out of office only in accordance with provisions in the agreement and terms for exclusion. I think it quite unfair that an Alliance Minister might be put out of office just for being annoying, although some people might consider that a good enough reason. The chances are, however, that whoever is appointed will be the Minister until the next Assembly election, if devolution comes before it.
	The Bill provides that, after the Assembly election scheduled for May 2011, all the other Ministers will have to be appointed by means of the d'Hondt system, and if that has not happened within seven days, there will be an election. However, the Bill also states that we do not have to appoint or elect a Minister of Justice. Our Department of Justice can continue indefinitely without a Minister. If we consider the Department of Justice to be so important and sensitive that we must get it absolutely right, can we really be saying that we want to pass legislation whereby we are prepared to leave the ministerial post vacant after an Assembly election—that the Department can continue without a Minister? And for how long are we saying that that can continue?

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will have observed that our amendments address not only what will happen after an Assembly election, but what would happen if policing and justice were devolved later this year. We feel that in that event a Minister should be in place almost immediately, or at least as soon as possible.

Mark Durkan: I am aware of the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but I think that our amendments provide better ways of dealing with these issues, and that they are more consistent and compatible with the principles and provisions of the agreement and the 1998 Act.
	Although I appreciate the opportunity that we were given to discuss aspects of the Bill with officials from the Northern Ireland Office, when we asked what would happen about the Justice Minister and how long the situation could continue, we were told, "Obviously there will come a point at which Westminster will have to intervene." Will it? Has Sinn Fein agreed to that? It has clearly agreed to much of the Bill's content, but has it agreed that if no Justice Minister is appointed for a significant period after the 2011 election, Westminster will have to intervene at some stage? Is this permanent devolution, or is it devolution that involves direct rule, or bits of direct rule, coming back here and there? It is unusual, and it is curious.
	Why might we not have an elected Minister of Justice after the 2011 Assembly election? We might not have one because the Bill contains a sunset clause identifying 1 May 2012 as the point at which the Department of Justice will be devolved if no other provisions are made. The year will build up to that deadline and the potential stand-off between Sinn Fein and the DUP, which is what they intend. There was a stand-off between them over the devolution of justice and policing last year, with the Executive failing to meet for five months. Now the issue will be cranked up again in advance of the May 2011 election.
	Each party will seek a mandate so that it can stand up to the other. Sinn Fein will want to push the line in asserting its rights in terms of the Ministry of Justice and policing, while the DUP will seek a mandate to hold the line against Sinn Fein's assertions. Immediately after the election, the negotiations will begin. We will see a stand-off that could easily be reflected in a failure to agree to the election of a Justice Minister. The game of chicken will continue. According to the Bill, in 2011 we shall have a Department without a Minister, perhaps for a significant length of time.

William McCrea: Is it not also true that now is the time for the SDLP to stand up against Sinn Fein, give leadership to the people and gain their confidence?

Mark Durkan: We have always stood up against Sinn Fein. It is not us who are conniving and colloguing with Sinn Fein. It is not us who are in a snug pact with Sinn Fein, rushing all sorts of potentially controversial legislation through the Assembly under the accelerated passage procedure.
	I took with a pinch of salt what I heard from some Members today about the need to ensure that legislation was always given due scrutiny, particularly when it was sensitive and controversial. I only hope that when it comes to the legislation on the devolution of justice and policing in the Assembly, it is not subject to the accelerated passage procedure as well. Sinn Fein, along with the DUP, has a fondness for using that procedure in the Assembly. Some of the rest of us try to stand up to Sinn Fein in those circumstances, but of course the DUP stands with it in those circumstances.
	I have referred to the difficulties there could be in 2011, when we could have a Department without a Minister for a significant period of time. I now want to move on to 2012.

Sammy Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman does so, may I ask about the picture he has painted of what he considers to be the likely stand-off over the Minister for policing and justice? Does he not accept that if that kind of atmosphere prevails in policing and justice, it is also likely to prevail in the appointment of a First and Deputy First Minister, because there is the same potential for that? Therefore, if the structure, which he endorsed, for the appointment of the First and Deputy First Minister is robust enough, why does he not consider the arrangement for the appointment of a Minister for policing and justice to be similarly robust?

Mark Durkan: Simply because experience, including of how parties have dealt with this issue, shows us that it will not be. If this is about creating certainty, stability and confidence in the devolution of justice and policing, why are we going for a model that is so injected and pre-programmed with uncertainty that we have provisions for no Minister in 2011 and for dissolution in 2012? We have been told in both this debate and the earlier one about the significance of the 18 November agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That letter told us there was no fall-back, and that there was a sunset clause which was agreed only until May 2012. Do we have an enduring settlement and arrangement if we have a provision that is purely transitional and leads to the potential dissolution—that is what we are legislating for—on 1 May 2012 with no fall-back? We could have the fall-down of a Department, but we have no political fall-back. Therefore, in 2011 we could have a Department with no Minister and, because the schedule does not say that when the Department dissolves the Minister ceases to hold office, in 2012 we will have a Minister but perhaps no Department. There will be a zombie Minister, nominally the Minister of justice; there will be a Minister in office, but with no office and no private office staff, or anything else. That is the nonsense that we are legislating for in this Bill. So there is not just the badness of what has been done in moving away from the agreement and inclusion, but the madness of legislating for failure in that regard.
	The First Minister and Deputy First Minister letter said there was no fall-back, but there is, of course, potentially a fall-back. We are told that this legislation is to discharge and reflect faithfully the agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and all that was carefully negotiated between Sinn Fein and the DUP, but a fall-back is provided for. Paragraph 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 provides for the Secretary of State to introduce an Order in Council that would impose our old friend model 8, which the right hon. Member for Neath legislated through this House when he was Secretary of State. That model says there will be a justice Minister and a deputy justice Minister from the two largest political parties. I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State or the Minister, either in an intervention or in a winding-up speech, whether they intend that provision as a fall-back, and if so, have they told Sinn Fein? Have Sinn Fein and the DUP agreed that there is such a fall-back? If Sinn Fein has agreed that that is a fall-back, the agreement of 18 November is already contradicted and confounded, and if it has not agreed that, it may well be upset and annoyed that this has been smuggled past it. That is one reason why we need more time to consider these matters in this House: some of us can spot things that Sinn Fein seems unable to spot, like the meaning of the words "at all times".

Gregory Campbell: As for whether the option would be the Justice Ministry or any other option, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of negotiations and discussions running into the sand, the ultimate fall-back position would be this House anyway?

Mark Durkan: That is not what I want to achieve; I want to achieve devolution that happens once and for all and for good, particularly if we are, in the Secretary of State's words, trying to talk about enduring arrangements. That is what we want to get to. I make no secret of the fact—this is shown in my party's amendments—that what we want for a Minister of justice and policing, as with all other Ministers, is appointment by inclusion, by the d'Hondt system. If people realise just how limited the rules and powers of this Minister are going to be, they may not be as vexed. The reality is that the Minister's main job will be getting the budget rather than setting it, because that is the job of the Chief Constable and the Policing Board, and taking the lead in preparing and providing legislation as well.
	The point about 2012 is that we will have this stalemate of a Department dissolved. What will happen to its functions? Will they, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) suggests, then come to this House? I know that some hon. Members have tabled amendments saying that in the event of no Minister being appointed in 2011 or the Department dissolving in 2012, things revert to some sort of direct rule, some sort of appointment by the Prime Minister, or they go to the Secretary of State and so on. I do not know whether that is what he is suggesting when he says that they will revert to this House. That may be his understanding, but I do not know whether it is part of an understanding that his party has shared with Sinn Fein and that the leader of his party has shared with the Deputy First Minister—perhaps that will be elaborated on later in the debate.
	The potential fall-back provided for in paragraph 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 is not much of a fall-back, because it does not guarantee that a Department and a Minister will be appointed. The fall-back brings us only to a situation in which there can be a Minister and a Deputy Minister elected by cross-community votes, and so we are back again to the need for agreement and the potential veto over who will be the Justice and Policing Minister—it is the triple lock yet again. No matter what way we look at all these things and the fall-backs, it is again a case of, "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza." We keep coming back to the same point—the veto that will be there. Even the fall-back of 2012 turns out to be an optical illusion too, because we are confronted with the DUP veto at all times in that situation.
	That is why we need to pay attention to the various amendments that are proposed on these issues. Other issues are obviously provided for in this Bill, but on judicial appointments we regret the removal of the role in the procedure for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—not that they were going to have a significant say, because their only power was to be to ask, on occasion, the Judicial Appointments Commission to think again about a recommendation. That was all; they could ask it to have a second thought on a recommendation, but they were going to have no other powers of interference or influence on judicial appointments. This was provided for in the criminal justice review, and we regret anything that takes us away from that review.
	Similarly, because the issue of a corporation sole for the Director of Public Prosecutions was provided for in the criminal justice review, we are a lot more relaxed about it than the Opposition Front-Bench team is, and we see merit in the arrangement. The detail would be hugely important—and we would all want to test it—but the principle would certainly not be an issue for ourselves. We have addressed some of these issues in our amendments as well. When the burden of our remarks has been on the main politics of justice and policing, and the ministry, we certainly would not wish to neglect on Second Reading important issues of principle in relation to judicial appointments, and provisions that flow from the agreement.
	My party has also tabled amendments that deal with some other aspects of the Bill. Those are more by way of probing amendments where provisions are made for powers to switch from the Assembly to this Parliament or from here to authorities in Northern Ireland. We are not sure what is intended in such provisions and what they are meant to cover, so we tabled amendments so that we and other hon. Members can probe that.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has just offered the House a comprehensive analysis of some of the structural absurdities—

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the hon. Gentleman who is speaking, but we have barely an hour remaining for Second Reading. Would you be kind enough to appeal for slightly shorter speeches than the one that has just been inflicted on us? It is very important that we hear from the First Minister, as well as from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I might even wish to say something myself. We also need to hear the winding-up speeches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the whole House is aware that the clock is ticking. The hon. Gentleman has made the point well enough, and I do not think that I need repeat it.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall certainly curtail my remarks substantially.
	Several points arose from the speech by the hon. Member for Foyle, which was a comprehensive analysis, although I did not share all his conclusions. On several occasions I would have liked to test his analysis, but I resisted doing so because of the time constraints that have been placed on the House. That is a very good practical illustration of the absurdity of the position in which the Secretary of State's timetable motion has placed the House today. We are constrained from giving a proper consideration to this Bill on Second Reading, let alone at the later stages. We have two hours and 10 minutes for the Second Reading of a Bill that is of constitutional significance, and that is a constitutional outrage.
	That said, the Liberal Democrats will support the Second Reading of the Bill. We have been supportive of the Government throughout the devolutionary process. Occasionally we have been critical friends, but I like to think that we have always been supportive and been able to reach an accommodation with the Government. I hope that by the time that we come to the end of this process, if not in this Chamber then in the other place, we will remain able to make that proud boast. However, as the Secretary of State knows, substantial issues of difference still lie between us. As things stand, it will be difficult for me to compromise on certain points that I shall mention later, on which we have tabled amendments.
	We are in favour of the devolution of criminal justice. We have supported and promoted it for a long time, and we see it as the final piece in the devolutionary jigsaw. It is a major step in the normalisation process, as it is called. Several measures have already been put in place to provide greater transparency and accountability regarding operational matters, and they now need to be plugged into a democratically elected Assembly. That would be a recognition that criminal justice sits well with the other devolved Departments, including health and education. Criminal justice does not exist in a silo.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) spoke earlier about the budget. Although that is not germane to the text of the Bill, It is part of the proper context in which we should consider the devolution of criminal justice. I was surprised when I heard the Secretary of State say that chief constables on the mainland of the United Kingdom would be envious of the budget given to the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. That would probably be the only operational aspect of policing in Northern Ireland that would be the subject of envy from other chief constables. That point again highlights the inconsistency in the Secretary of State's position. On the one hand, he tells us that we have to railroad the Bill through today because the whole process is so fragile, but on the other, he says that we have to look for cuts and savings in the front-line policing budget. We all know the context of the Patten level of policing being set at 7,500 until 2010 and thereafter of the suggested reduction to 6,000. To my mind, if devolution of criminal justice is to be successful politically, it must be given the resources operationally. If we fail to debate it in that context, we will have failed in our duty.
	Our principal concern, however, relates to the provisions of schedule 1, which deal with the removal of a Minister from office. The House will be aware that the schedule proposes that a Justice Minister can be removed by a simple cross-community vote in the Assembly. The Secretary of State might argue that that is the same procedure as for the removal of any other Minister in the Assembly, but to do so ignores the political implications of that part of the Bill. We have warned the Secretary of State and Ministers not to consider policing in Northern Ireland as in any way comparable to other ministries. Policing in Northern Ireland has a particular special context and special arrangements, including those for human rights compliance and the structures for oversight and accountability that are not considered necessary in the rest of the UK.
	Indeed, the subject of our debate this afternoon substantiates that point. We are offered yet another model for a ministry of justice in Northern Ireland in addition to the various others that are already on the statute book. Again, it emphasises that the justice ministry will not be just another Department and says that an issue as important as policing in Northern Ireland must have special arrangements. An entirely new Department must be created, outside the 10 Departments in the Assembly, to accommodate such weighty functions. That model says that although we have already considered how such a ministry should be structured, we have not got it right yet and that the matter is too important to be anything less than perfect. Simply to say that the Minister in charge of one of the most contentious and critical Departments can be got rid of in the same way as any other Minister ignores the special circumstances that surround the role.
	Policing and justice functions are different in the Northern Irish context. They are so different that the parties in the Executive believe that they should look beyond themselves to find a person who can fulfil the role of the Justice Minister. Reference has been made to the Alliance party as the elephant in the room, but the elephant that has more determination in this debate than any other is the elephant that chooses not to come to this room. It is not the Alliance party that is pulling the strings, but Sinn Fein.
	It is not the function of the Bill or the House to appoint the next Justice Minister, but we all know that it is widely said that an Alliance party nominee would be expected to take up the role, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Foyle explained. It is obvious that there is a certain logic and appropriateness in that. However, to place an Alliance Minister in a role from which they could be so easily removed is, in our view, completely unacceptable. That is our point of disruption as far as the Secretary of State and the Government are concerned. There is no equivalence between a Minister who simply has to retain the confidence of his party nominating officer and one who has to maintain the confidence of political opponents while doing the most difficult job in the Assembly.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has recently been the subject of some controversy as Minister of Environment, given his views on man-made climate change. I wonder, in passing, whether he would retain the confidence of political opponents in the way that is expected of the Minister for Justice. Indeed, important though climate change is, the removal of the Environment Minister, if it were to happen, would never have the political implications of the removal of the Justice Minister.
	It is also worth remembering that in a cross-community vote, the vote of a Member of the Alliance party is worth less than the vote of a Member of the DUP, Sinn Fein, the SDLP or the Ulster Unionist party—or the new force, or whatever it now is. The vote of an Alliance Member does not count in the stage that requires 50 per cent. of Unionists and 50 per cent. of the nationalists to vote, as Alliance is neither Unionist nor nationalist. Is it right that a person can be removed from such a fundamental position by a mechanism that does not even treat them as equal to the other parties in the Executive? No other party would accept such an onerous duty under such disadvantageous circumstances, and we cannot expect the Alliance party to do so.
	When the House moves to consideration of the Bill in Committee, we will deal with amendments that seek to correct what we regard as an unacceptable provision. If the Government do not accept our constructive amendments, I very much regret to say that, although they will have our support on Second Reading, I cannot guarantee that they will have it much beyond that.

David Cairns: I rise to support the Bill. This is my first speech from the Back Benches in nearly four years, and I am very pleased that we are talking about a Bill that moves forward a process that is very close to my heart and to the hearts of all hon. Members in the House.
	I am very conscious that the First Minister has not yet had the opportunity to address the House, so I shall drastically curtail my remarks to give him that opportunity. However, I am also very pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I did not think that his speech was being inflicted on the House or on me: I enjoyed it, and he raised some serious and substantive points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to address them satisfactorily, either when he sums up on Second Reading or on Report.
	I also enjoyed the retelling by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle of his line about "vacuous models". I enjoyed it the first, second and even third times that I heard him use it—

Mark Durkan: I have used it only once.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend says that he has used it only once, but today he referred to Hugh Hefner. When I heard it on another occasion, he mentioned Peter Stringfellow, which only goes to show that he has used the line more than once. However, it is a good line and merits retelling.
	On a serious point, I am aware that this Bill, like many other measures introduced over the past few years, has generated unhappiness among my friends and comrades in the Social Democratic and Labour party. I sincerely hope that history will record the absolutely central role played by the SDLP in getting us to this point. When I was coming into politics, John Hume was a personal hero of mine and he inspired much of my approach. Although the realpolitik can be brutal—the electoral reality in Northern Ireland means that the Government have to deal with Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party—that does not mean that we should have less respect for what the SDLP has achieved.
	Given the time, I shall restrict my comments to the issues of devolution and ministerial portfolios. As I said, this Bill is a small but very important step in the right direction. At the risk of provoking a rerun of the arguments held on the programme motion, I point out that the proposals in it are largely technical. That is not to diminish them or suggest that they are not complicated, but they are not prescriptive. The House is not setting out to tell members of the Stormont Assembly how they must proceed, but the Bill gives them another option in their general toolkit of options for facilitating what is a very important step in devolution.
	For a short while, I had a role in our constitution that I think was unique. At one and the same time, I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office under direct rule, and also a Minister in the Scotland Office, where devolution was fully functioning. That allowed me to see both sides of the Government's work in relation to the nations and regions of the UK.
	When I was a direct rule Minister in Northern Ireland, I always said that the form of government that we were able to provide there was not the second or even third best option, but that it was by a long way sub-optimal. I was looking after the Departments with responsibility for agriculture and for the environment, and I see that my esteemed successor in the latter is in his place this afternoon. I was also in charge of the Department for Regional Development, and I am very pleased that the strategic road improvement programme is opening today, after many years of the traffic jams that I inflicted on Belfast. However, the amount of time that we were able to give to such matters was, with the best will in the world, simply nowhere near as much as a local Minister can give to them. That is why I think that devolution will, in principle, result in greater confidence and better government.
	That is not to say that I always agree with everything that local Ministers do. The devolved Minister with responsibility for criminal justice and policing in Scotland, Kenny MacAskill, is a man with whom I rarely agree on anything. Many of the things that he does as a Minister are wrong-headed, and many of the policies that he pursues are flat-out disastrous, but I would still rather that he was in post, having put a mandate before the people of Scotland and having been elected, albeit that he is making what I regard as mistakes, than that we did not have devolution at all. It is better that we proceed with devolution of criminal justice, albeit at a snail's pace, with all the caveats, inconsistencies and unintended—or intended—consequences that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle outlined. That is still better than direct rule.
	Obviously, because of the separate nature of its criminal justice system, Scotland has an absolutely central aspect of devolution in place. Devolution in Scotland without devolution of policing and criminal justice is unthinkable. The situation is slightly different in Wales, because there has never been a separate Welsh judiciary. Devolution in Northern Ireland will not be complete until policing and criminal justice matters have been devolved. I hope that that happens within my political lifetime—

Patrick Cormack: It depends how long that is.

David Cairns: —and I hope that we do not hear a repetition of the phrase that it will not happen within our political lifetime, because that would leave an important, fairly disastrous hole in the middle of the devolutionary principle. I do not regard my political lifetime as over, contrary to any obituaries that have been written. It is important that we do not regard the current situation as in any way satisfactory until we complete that journey.
	I understand the political processes that have to be gone through. I very much understand the political sensitivities, having spent a brief time in Northern Ireland, thankfully long after the troubles had ended. My only experience of such matters was meeting relatives of people killed or badly injured during that time. I was immensely privileged to attend the commemoration of the anniversary of the Omagh bombing. I will take with me for the rest of my life the extraordinary dignity of the families who lost loved ones in that most awful tragedy. We must not do anything crass and insensitive to their feelings and the memories that they carry with them, but the process has to move on. No one is arguing against that, but we have to will the means as well as the end. Everyone says, "We want criminal justice to be devolved", but then for ever expresses caveats about the means, often as a way of delaying the day when criminal justice is devolved. We cannot use as a means of obfuscation the processes available in the toolkit that the Government are providing. They have to be used as a means of bringing about that devolution by the most equitable and fair means possible.
	I want to speak on an issue that is slightly to one side of the thrust of today's debate, but given that the Bill amends legislation on ministerial functions in Northern Ireland Departments, I hope that it is in order to do so; it may be the only opportunity that I get to say this. Obviously, if Northern Ireland is to proceed to a greater degree of normality, and to devolution akin to that in Scotland, issues to do with the enforced nature of the coalition will have to be dealt with. I believe strongly that the way in which ministerial Departments are configured in Northern Ireland militates against good government and good decision making. I understand why they are configured in that way, and why responsibilities have been separated as they have been, but it does not lead to good government.
	It makes no sense that one Department has responsibility for the Northern Ireland Planning Service, while another has responsibility for planning policy. That simply makes no sense, and it does not lead to good decision making and good government. I happened to be the Minister with responsibility for both Departments, and it was months before I realised that those things were in separate Departments. It took me a while to figure out why there were two different cast lists of officials, and why, when I said, "In the meeting the other day, we spoke about planning policy statement 12" or whatever, officials looked at me blankly and said, "Minister, we are the Planning service; we have nothing to do with planning policy." That sort of anomaly is replicated throughout government in Northern Ireland. This clearly is not the Bill nor the time to address such anomalies, but perhaps in 2012, when we are considering the new shape of the Justice Department, if a modicum of trust exists between the parties, it will be the time to do so.
	It has been difficult enough in Northern Ireland to attract significant inward investment, such as John Lewis in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who is not in his place. It was difficult enough under direct rule—whether or not we had to deal with the same people, although in different Departments, who were able to speak to colleagues—to compete with other parts of the United Kingdom, let alone other parts of Europe, and to move quickly, as Governments must, but I fear for Northern Ireland if these anomalies are not addressed in a proper review of Government. That is a bigger issue than is before us today, but it is relevant because we are talking about ministerial portfolios.
	I conclude by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The issue of Northern Ireland has fallen out of the headlines here and that might lead some to conclude that it has been resolved, that it is all sorted and that there is no major heavy lifting to be done. But a lot of work has gone on under my right hon. Friend's watch in the last couple of years, and he has gone about it in a quiet and dignified way, seeking not to inflame the positions, but to resolve them. That is the spirit in which he has approached the legislation today. I commend him for it and I commend the legislation to the House.

Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Inverclyde (David Cairns) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for truncating their remarks to allow me the opportunity to speak. I am not sure whether it will be of great value to them, because on the British Midland flight this morning I put my scribbled notes on the centre seat while I talked to the man beside me and the steward came along and said, "Can I take that rubbish away?" I can only say that it is a pity that he was not the steward on the flight taken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We might all have had more of an opportunity to speak in this debate.
	I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It represents a significant step in introducing new propositions that will significantly grow confidence in Northern Ireland in policing and justice. It allows for a methodology whereby the people of Northern Ireland can have confidence, despite the long-held concern that most within the Unionist community felt about the prospect of a Sinn Fein Minister or Sinn Fein being in control of policing and justice.
	I can easily recognise that Sinn Fein has taken considerable steps, given where it started from, in giving support to the police and encouraging people to give information to the police, and that must all be welcome, but it does not amount to its having gained sufficient confidence within the community to allow it to hold that office. I have no doubt that the prospect of any of my colleagues being Justice Minister will not enthral those who support Sinn Fein. That is the nub of the issue: the requirement that whoever holds that position has support across the community, especially given the kind of post that we are talking about. In the fullness of time, as normality in political terms gains hold in Northern Ireland, no doubt the DUP can look to that post, and there will be many very capable of holding it.
	It is regrettable that my colleagues do not have sufficient opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I hope that there will be some flexibility during the Committee stage to allow them to make their remarks. Politics is the worse for the debate being reduced to one day. I cannot understand how the business managers of this House think that it is more important that those in another place have two days to debate the Bill while we have only one day.
	Those who follow Northern Ireland affairs closely will be aware of the agreement that laid the foundation for this Bill. It took many months of negotiations to reach it, and it is important to understand the background to this measure—not just what it does, but what it does not do. That affects the wider question of the devolution of policing and justice functions in Northern Ireland.
	The history of devolving policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland is encouraging to Unionists. Unionists fought to have those powers involved in the original settlement when Stormont was set up, and Carson and Craigavon rightly ensured that that Parliament had them. That was the Unionist thing to do. Some people out there would make out that having policing and justice powers was some fillip to Sinn Fein. The reality is that another Unionist Prime Minister refused to continue with devolution when those powers were taken away, saying that a Parliament without them was not worth having. Those powers are no big deal—or "no big move", as I have been quoted as saying—for Unionists. The control over those issues should be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly's Ministers.
	The big issue—the big deal—has always been about who would have the powers under their control. My party made its position clear. I do not want to take up too much time, but the Democratic Unionist party manifesto is always worth reading. We made three specific commitments in it. First, we said that
	"we support the devolution of policing and justice functions",
	and what we are doing today is consistent with that. Secondly, we said that
	"we believe this can only happen when there is the necessary support within the community."
	I shall come back to that vital issue in a moment. Thirdly, we said:
	"We have indicated that we do not believe there would be support for the devolution of such powers to a Sinn Fein Minister in the foreseeable future."
	We stood on those points in the Assembly election, during which we brought out a policy document on policing and justice. Some of its wording has been mangled by some of our opponents, so it is proper that it should be placed on the record. It states that
	"we support the devolution of policing and justice...but believe it can only occur in the circumstances where there is the necessary confidence within the community. In the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 we succeeded in ensuring there was a triple lock on the exercise of such powers...In short, we have negotiated a veto for unionists on the devolution of these powers."
	Importantly, we went on to say:
	"We have repeatedly indicated that in the context of Sinn Fein having a ministerial role in policing or justice it could be a political lifetime"—
	the hon. Member for Inverclyde wondered whether that term would come up—
	"before such powers would be devolved. However, we have now negotiated arrangements which allow the powers to be devolved when we are satisfied but also allow us to block a Sinn Fein Justice Minister."
	Therefore it was very clear that it was in the context of Sinn Fein's having "a ministerial role" in policing or justice that a political lifetime could be involved. I am glad that, under the Bill, a cross-community vote will allow Unionist representatives to ensure that the person who holds the position is someone whom they believe fit to do so and someone with the confidence of the community. Equally, the nationalist community can have that confidence as well.
	The hon. Member for Foyle has made much by stretching beyond credulity the issue of the arrangements in this Bill. I do not recognise the features to which he referred. Let me tell him why the d'Hondt issue came to a head with this Bill. If that system had been used, it might have helped the hon. Gentleman on this occasion, but it could have helped anybody else on a future occasion. As I said earlier, the important aspect of the position of Justice Minister is that the person who holds it should be able to gain cross-community support and the respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland. That is why d'Hondt was dumped, and it was a good precedent.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to tear down the rusty scaffolding of the Belfast agreement and get back more towards normality; the hon. Member for Inverclyde, a former Northern Ireland Minister, made that very point. We must continually reform the way in which we operate in Northern Ireland, not satisfy ourselves with what was effectively a cobbled-together version to deal with the specific difficulties that we faced. We must democratise Northern Ireland's institutions, daily if we can. I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle will join us in attempting to make those changes to move from the unusual structures set up by the Belfast agreement, but happily much reformed by the St. Andrews agreement, which brought real accountability to the process of government in Northern Ireland.
	In 2007, we made our position clear in our manifesto and policy document. By contrast, the Ulster Unionists' position has moved considerably from where they were. I want to put on record the fact that there is no doubt that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) would have been here today—she always takes a great interest in policing matters and often speaks on them—but she is attending the funeral of a former colleague. I am sure that the House will understand her absence in those circumstances. The position of the Ulster Unionists—I do not blame the hon. Member for North Down for this—is that they signed a deal that involved Sinn Fein and would have automatically devolved policing and justice in October 2005. Even while the arms were still being held, while violence was continuing, while criminality was going on, they signed up to a deal whereby at the end of the 2005 we would have had the devolution of policing and justice powers.
	More than that, when we prepared for the setting up of the Assembly we had what was called the Preparation for Government Committee, although it changed its name at some point, in which we dealt with the issue of policing and justice. The Ulster Unionist party's representatives chided my party—I was deputy leader at the time—for not moving fast enough. Now we find—the Conservatives and Unionists' new farce is killing us—that we are moving too fast. Let me be clear: our speed on this matter will be based entirely on the electoral commitments; there is no other basis on which we will move. Nobody else will add to or take away from the conditions that are laid down.
	I welcome the Bill. We will perhaps get the opportunity to correct some of the misunderstandings that people might still have about certain aspects of it during the Committee stage.
	I want to allow my good friend, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the opportunity to make a contribution, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but first I should mention the appointment of judges. We rightly took the view that judges should be appointed by a completely independent body so that they are not political appointees and therefore there is credibility to their independence. That model could be followed by others. It is a good move and, irrespective of the circumstances that brought it about, it is the right move for Northern Ireland.
	This is not the end of the legislative process. Legislation has to be passed in the Assembly, which is a process that we will soon have to begin. After that, there are the stages where we will have to be satisfied that there is support for these measures, although I honestly believe that that is growing. Since we managed to negotiate that Sinn Fein would not hold the justice ministry, I have not heard anywhere in my constituency the kinds of concerns that there had been previously. However—people do not want to hear this, but it still has to be said—confidence is about more than who will operate these structures; it is also about the funding of policing and justice. That is a very important matter. I have discussed it with the Secretary of State and will no doubt do so many more times. There is no sense in Northern Ireland's Assembly having responsibility for policing and justice if it does not have the resources to do the job. It is therefore vital that the Government divvy up in this regard.
	When we entered into devolution in the first place, the Government gave us a financial commitment, about which there is some talk. I do not believe that the Prime Minister will go back on his word, and therefore I am sure that the rumours from the Treasury will be quashed at some later stage. But even though we had a deal for devolution, in which we were told that we could keep all the efficiencies made in Northern Ireland, there is talk in the Treasury that some of them will be pulled back. If people want us to have confidence in any deal that we do on finances for policing and justice, it will not set a very good example or give us confidence if the Treasury takes something back from the budget that was agreed to in the deal at the time of devolution.
	I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish the Bill well. Like any Bill, it could be improved and my colleagues and I are happy to listen to any amendments and to take decisions based on the merit of the case presented.

Andrew MacKinlay: I congratulate the politicians of Northern Ireland on reaching the agreement that meant that this Bill could come before the House. I want to hear from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and my friend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), so I will curtail my comments—but not because I was approached in the past 15 minutes by two Whips. That is a monumental cheek, frankly, in view of what happened earlier today.
	I would like to ask a question to the Secretary of State that he might answer in winding up or in Committee. As I understand it, extraditions between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and requests for extradition from Northern Ireland to the Republic, have to come through the Ministry of Justice in London. Is there anything in the new arrangements that will allow us to avoid that process? It is not the distance of miles, but the fact that an extra party is involved in the extraditions that delays things, and it is quite frustrating for the police forces of both jurisdictions that such matters have to be dealt with through London. Will there be any change when the new judicial arrangements come in?
	I was not clear about what the Secretary of State said about the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction will not be like the one here, who is a party political appointment and a Member of Parliament. The Attorney-General in Northern Ireland will not be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, although he or she will have access to it. I cannot see what the problem is. That is another example of where we could have had more time to tease out what is involved, including the relationship with the Secretary of State for Justice.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) referred to 2011 and 2012, and there is a 2010 issue, as well. For the purposes of this afternoon's debate, let us assume that a Justice Minister is appointed from the Alliance party, is up and running in the role, but slips down the steps at Stormont—which are hard and difficult—and hurts himself badly, and then is no more. One cannot totally dismiss that scenario, but I do not wish it on anybody. What happens at the moment of such an unforeseen vacancy? It could well be that the Alliance does not wish to nominate in the unforeseen eventuality of a casual, but immediate vacancy occurring. How would that matter be resolved?
	After the 2011 Stormont election, the size of the legislative Assembly has been large, and the proportional representation system allows room in the garden for most political interests. Boyd Black might lead a small, but significant Labour group in the Assembly—who knows? There is also the possibility, which we cannot dismiss, that there will be no Alliance party after the next election, and that all we will have is designated Unionists and designated nationalists. In that case, there will be an immediate paralysis that is not addressed by the legislation.
	We need to keep the sanction for 2012, and for 2011, that there will be a dissolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a fresh general election if the body politic cannot agree on a new Justice Minister. It focuses men and women's minds like a hanging if they know that they are going to face another general election. I hope that we can explore that matter further in Committee, but having raised those points I now conclude.

Patrick Cormack: I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for the gracious way in which he curtailed his remarks. I must say, any Whip who approaches him and tries to get him to speak for a very short time deserves the Whips' cross, or some other order. If anybody is incapable of being cajoled in that way, it is the hon. Gentleman.
	I am grateful also to my right hon. Friend—if I am allowed to call him that—the First Minister, who made a splendid speech. He said some extremely important things and he could, and in many ways should, have spoken for longer, as indeed should the Liberal Democrat spokesman. That underlines the point that so many Members made in the earlier debate about the allocation of time. It really is shameful. It is shameful also that some Northern Ireland Members and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), an assiduous member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, will not be able to contribute to this Second Reading debate.
	I wish to make a few brief points. When I came into the House in 1970 and sat next to a number of Ulster Unionists, who were then part of the Conservative party and a very different creation from the one that has appeared recently, we had a Parliament in Northern Ireland. As the First Minister indicated, there was a Minister in that Parliament who was responsible for policing and justice, which was an essential part of the settlement. I was here when direct rule was imposed, and I hope that I shall still be here when policing and justice are devolved again, and indeed for some years afterwards. That is why, like the First Minister and, I believe, everybody else who has spoken, I strongly support the Bill. That makes it all the sadder that we have a note of acrimony because of the curtailment of the debate.
	I pay tribute to both the Secretary of State and, in particular, the Minister of State, who I hope will make a brief winding-up speech. He has endeared himself to people throughout the Province during his time there. It is crucial that, as and when policing and justice are devolved, that devolution sticks. That is why we must be guided on the timing of that devolution by those among the Unionist community who want it desperately. They have been magnanimous in not seeking to gain office for themselves, and given the current climate it is right that a member of another party, whether the Alliance party or another minority party, should hold the post of Justice Minister. That is for the people of Northern Ireland, and in particular the Assembly, to determine.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock made the important point that there must be a contingency plan. None of us is immortal, and accident and death can happen to anyone, so there must be a contingency plan in the interests of continuity. I hope that the negotiations that will take place during the rest of this year, and until we have a Minister in place, will include proper provision for a contingency plan in the unhappy event of the incapacity or demise of the first Justice Minister.
	It is crucial that there is proper financial stability and a proper financial settlement. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk raised that point in an intervention and that the First Minister underlined it. We all know the historic reasons why the costs of policing in Northern Ireland are so different from the costs of policing on Merseyside. The Secretary of State used that analogy. Of course, it is not really an analogy, because I could say that the costs of policing in Staffordshire, which has a population roughly equivalent to that of Northern Ireland, are much less, but of course there was not a period of 30 years in Staffordshire when more than 3,000 people were killed. We all know that it will take a long time before there is absolute normality. It is crucial that the transition from responsibility here in Westminster to responsibility in Belfast should be smooth and seamless and there should not be problems over present-day policing.
	Also, we have to bring to a conclusion the cost of policing the past. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs produced a unanimous report on that issue, and I am glad that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is here, because he was a member of the Committee at that time—I pay tribute to him. However, we left a number of issues unanswered, awaiting the Eames-Bradley report. Now, when we look at the Eames-Bradley report, we must not dismiss the whole thing because of one particularly unwise recommendation. However, the furore caused as a result of that publication indicates the complexity of dealing with the past.
	There is also a cost to dealing with the past. Whether one draws a line after five years or seven years, or whether one does not draw a line, there is a cost. The cost implications are considerable, and they are totally relevant to what we are discussing this afternoon, because if we create a situation where the costs are so overburdening that Northern Ireland cannot be properly policed, we will be giving a poisoned chalice to whomever holds that ministerial office and to their successors.
	I will end on that note because we are about to hear the winding-up speeches and I do not want to transgress. It is crucial that what we are paving the way for here in Westminster today is a permanent solution. I want never again to see the imposition of direct rule in Northern Ireland. It would be a badge of failure for us all if that ever happened. It is therefore vital that the settlement that is agreed in Northern Ireland should be one that can last and that there should not be just one immediate Justice Minister, be they from the Alliance party or any other party, but that they should be the first in a long line. If that is the case, the work being done today will indeed be well done; if it is not, we will have failed the people of Northern Ireland, which we must not do.

Laurence Robertson: Let me start by saying that the Bill is extremely complicated. It may be short and quite technical, but it is extremely complicated, in that it amends a number of previous Acts, as hon. Members have already said, and that those Acts have been amended previously. I thank the Clerks and the Northern Ireland Office for being so helpful, but at times even they had to do quite a bit of research to explain some of the things proposed by the Bill. I suggest that in future we try to find a slightly better way of dealing with legislation that amends so many previous Acts that have already been amended.
	More time was needed for the Bill. Let me reiterate that Conservative Front Benchers took the view that the time would have been better spent on Second Reading rather than on debating the programme motion. That said, when the vote came we whipped our hon. Friends to support the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). We on the Front Bench greatly regret the fact that this debate has been truncated, when there is very little business taking place in the House tomorrow. We could have gone over into tomorrow and had a proper debate, but now we will have only two hours for the Committee stage, and there are a number of amendments to discuss.
	We support the concept of devolution. Over the past four years I have probably sat on more Statutory Instrument Committees than any hon. Member in this Parliament. We have decided some very important matters in Statutory Instrument Committee, especially before the Assembly was reconvened almost two years ago. I am clearly on record as saying how wrong it is to decide major issues that affect more than 1.5 million people in Committees upstairs that were, as ever, stuffed with people who would go along with the party line, which was certainly true of Government Members. That was wrong. Those issues should have been decided by the people of Northern Ireland, and I have clearly stated that on the record.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has said, we are very much in favour of devolving policing and justice. Of course, that has to happen when the time is right, and it has to be done in the right format. In our judgment, this model for the devolution of policing and justice is the one with the most merit. It could, however, be improved in a number of ways. We are concerned that there is no time limit for the appointment of a Minister to oversee these matters, when policing and justice are devolved. Devolution could take place without a Minister being in place, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has pointed out. After an Assembly election, all the other Ministers have to be appointed within seven days, but no time limit is specified for the appointment of this new Minister. Given the rather difficult security situation in Northern Ireland, we consider it unacceptable that responsibility should be devolved without a Minister being in place to oversee it. We have tabled amendments, which I hope that we shall discuss, to address that situation.
	We hear what the Secretary of State has said about the supervision of the DPP, but we consider it unacceptable for someone in such a serious office not to be required to report to anyone or to obtain the protection of another Law Officer. Again, we have tabled amendments to try to address that situation. In regard to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about extracting the appointment of judicial positions from politicians, we also think that it would be better if the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland were appointed by the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, as that would strengthen devolution. We want to return to that matter in Committee.

Peter Robinson: If the Attorney-General were to appear before the Lord Chief Justice, what position would the Lord Chief Justice be placed in if the person appearing before him was effectively his appointee?

Laurence Robertson: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, we want to return to that matter in greater detail in Committee. We have tabled amendments on the subject, and we would like to discuss it at greater length at that time. We consider our proposal to be a better option.
	I have only a short amount of time left, but may I just say that our final concern relates to the fall-back position? What would happen, for example, if the Department were dissolved on 1 May 2012? There should be something in the Bill to tell us what would happen in those circumstances. Again, we are trying to ensure that devolution will work. We are trying to cement it, rather than undermine it. I would be grateful if the Minister could address some of these points now, in case we do not reach them all during the very short Committee stage. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not referring to all the speeches that were made during our Second Reading debate. I have made notes on them all, but I do not have time to go through them. Some very important points were raised, however.
	As has been said, the Bill does not introduce devolution, but it might encourage it when the time is right. As far as we are concerned, that is a matter for the Assembly to decide. At this stage, we wish the Bill well, but we will attempt to improve it somewhat during the very short Committee stage that follows.

Paul Goggins: I thank everyone who has participated in the Second Reading debate this afternoon. One of the important features of the Bill is that, while it is our business here, it is very much a Bill made in Northern Ireland, reflecting the agreement between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in November last year and the report and recommendations of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. From St. Andrews onwards, this Government have made it clear that we stand ready to do whatever we can to facilitate the move towards devolution—and now the completion of devolution—and that remains the case. That is why we have brought forward this legislation today. Of course, the question of when that will happen remains a matter for the Assembly, and the triple lock remains firmly in place. I thank the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for their broad support for what we are setting out to do in the Bill and for their continued support for the devolution process and the triple lock.
	I have been asked three specific questions. Police pay and conditions are currently negotiated centrally, which will remain the case at the point of devolution. The Assembly could change the situation in the future, although my recommendation, such as it is, is that it should consider change very carefully, as there are many benefits from having central negotiation. On public inquiries and who pays for them after the devolution of policing and justice, they remain the responsibility of central Government. On the future financial position, we are currently in the period governed by the comprehensive spending review of 2007, and it remains the case that throughout this period £1.1 billion will be available for policing for each and every year of that settlement. Beyond that is another matter, which will be the subject of further discussions.
	Both the hon. Members for North Shropshire and for Tewkesbury raised the issue of judicial appointments. I am pleased that they signalled their clear support for the removal of the advisory role of the First and Deputy First Ministers within the process. They mentioned that they would like to see a degree of superintendence by the Attorney-General of the DPP, although the hon. Member for North Shropshire said that he was reflecting further on it. It is important to understand that the relationship between the DPP and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is based on the criminal justice review of 2000 and subsequent legislation. The review stressed that visible independence for the DPP is essential. I will not repeat the entire Lord Mayhew quote, which my right hon. Friend cited in his speech, but the key words were that it was important for the DPP to be "entirely independent"—the emphasis being on both "entirely" and "independent".
	There will also be a statutory duty to consult, and the consultation will be real. For example, in drawing up the code of practice for prosecutors, I expect there to be a full and frank exchange between those two people, whose relationship I expect to be meaningful. I hope to reassure the Opposition Front-Bench team—if not now, then in subsequent discussions—that the relationship between the DPP and the Attorney-General will really mean something and will count for something.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made a speech that has been much remarked on—I enjoyed listening to it. He made the point that much in terms of devolution is already in place, particularly in respect of policing. The Policing Board is now in place, as are district policing partnerships, which are working increasingly closely with community safety partnerships. All that amounts to a significant devolution of functions and responsibilities. Of course, the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the police is already happening. I do not tell the Chief Constable what to do now; and I will not be able to tell him what to do after devolution either. I pay tribute to the Chief Constable and his colleagues for the part they have played in the journey that has brought us to today's debate. It was not always easy to sit on the Policing Board or to go on to district policing partnerships, but he and his colleagues have done that.
	I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle on his point about the d'Hondt system. Frankly, it is not for us in this place to choose the Minister; what we are doing is putting in place an additional model to enable the Assembly to do that. If I may say so, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a very important point when he offered a clear explanation of why d'Hondt could not be allowed to work—particularly now, when confidence is essential and the Assembly needs to keep control over the appointment. I found that to be a very persuasive argument.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and others have asked what would happen if there were no agreement after 2012. The Bill provides no fall-back position beyond May 2012. Frankly, it is not for us in this place to determine any additional model beyond that period; it is a matter for the Assembly. If there were complete breakdown—this comment applies to devolution generally—then of course central Government might need to step in, but they could not continue indefinitely in that way. There is no fall-back position, as I have said, and it is entirely a matter for the Assembly. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury wants something built directly into the Bill to deal with this, but I think not. It is important to know that central Government do not have a major hand in determining what happens in a model beyond May 2012. That is a matter entirely for the Assembly.

Laurence Robertson: Our concern is this: if there is no model in place, what happens then?

Paul Goggins: The parties themselves will have to determine the model beyond May 2012. We are devolving policing and justice powers; we are not saying that we are partly devolving them and saving a little for ourselves. The matter is entirely for those parties. From everything that I see and hear, I am entirely confident that they can manage that constructively.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is a good friend of the peace process, and I thank him for all the constructive discussions that we have. On his major point of concern, it simply could not happen that, frivolously, the Assembly could get rid of the Justice Minister on a whim. There would have to be a motion before the Assembly, which would have to be tabled by at least 30 MLAs. That motion would have to be tabled jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
	In the end, there has to be a mechanism for removing someone from office. In every single one of the models—we will have nine if the legislation goes through—the mechanism for appointing the Minister is the same as that for removing that Minister. That is the justification and the rationale for this measure.

Alistair Carmichael: The fact remains, however, that, on the face of it, the Justice Minister will be left in a different position from every other Minister in the Executive. How can that possibly be right?

Paul Goggins: It will be a different arrangement for removal because there is a different arrangement for appointment. The same mechanism for appointment is therefore available for removal. That is entirely consistent with the other models, even if it is different in the respect that the Assembly appoints the Minister. The party leader would normally nominate the Minister and could remove that Minister. Here, the Assembly appoints and the Assembly could remove, but the safeguards mean that that could not be done frivolously.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) for his speech. He was an excellent colleague in the time that we worked together in Northern Ireland, and he made an important contribution. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East also made an important speech that was encouraging in terms of devolution and, in particular, the Bill before us. He outlined the work that has gone into getting to the point at which the measures in the Bill have become possible. I thought it particularly striking that he took so much time to emphasise how important it is to the DUP that the devolution of policing and justice is carried through, although he of course emphasised that who exercises those powers is important. It is also important that there is widespread community confidence, although as he underlined, that confidence is growing. That is something that we can all sense.
	The right hon. Gentleman, in common with the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), mentioned the issue of cost. As he knows, that is subject to considerable work, led by Jeremy Heywood, who was appointed by the Prime Minister. No doubt that work will continue to attract his attention and that of others.
	I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for the remarks that he made, and for his support and his scrutiny of all the issues that we are discussing today, as well as on other occasions.
	I turn finally to my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who I know was somewhat frustrated that he could not have quite as long to speak as he perhaps would have liked—we seldom do in this place. He raised some important points. If somebody left office, as it were, by accident, the Assembly would have the powers and the wherewithal to appoint somebody to stand in their place. It would be the same mechanism for then appointing somebody to succeed them.
	My hon. Friend also asked about extraditions. Extraditions will not be affected by any measure in the Bill, although I am happy to meet him—
	 Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Northern Ireland Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Northern Ireland department with policing and justice functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
	'(2A) During the period between the relevant Minister ceasing to hold office and an appointment being made under the provisions of this Part, the Prime Minister shall appoint a person, being a member of the United Kingdom Parliament, to discharge the duties of the office.
	(2B) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (2A) may speak and move motions in the Assembly.
	(2C) The provisions in sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B) shall not apply if the relevant Minister has ceased to hold office by virtue of a dissolution.'.
	Amendment 19, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
	'(4A) But a member of the Assembly who is a member of a political party may not be nominated unless the nominating officer of the party consents to his nomination within a period specified in standing orders.'.
	Amendment 7, page 6, line 37, at end insert
	'and in addition has made a solemn declaration to respect the operational independence of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and to uphold the independence of the judiciary'.
	Amendment 20, page 6, line 42, leave out 'or'.
	Amendment 4 , page 6, line 44, at end insert 'by such reason as—
	(i) he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere after the date of his appointment;
	(ii) he has become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;
	(iii) he is not committed to non-violent and exclusively peaceful and democratic means;
	(iv) he is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a minister.'.
	Amendment 21, page 6, line 44, at end insert 'or
	(d) where consent to his nomination was required under sub-paragraph (4A), he is dismissed by the nominating officer who consented (or that officer's successor) and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.'.
	Amendment 3, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
	'(13A) Standing orders may (but need not) limit the number of such motions that may be moved during any period specified in standing orders.'.
	Amendment 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
	 'Immediate filling of Ministerial office6A If, after a period of six months following a devolution Order relating to policing and justice being made, the Ministerial office has not been filled, the Secretary of State shall assume the direction of the department.'.
	Amendment 26, page 8, leave out lines 12 to 22.
	Amendment 22, page 8, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
	'(2) If the relevant ministerial office has not been filled within the period mentioned in section 16A(3) then—
	(a) all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office, and
	(b) all ministerial offices (including, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the relevant ministerial office) shall be filled by applying section 18(2) to (6) within a further period of seven days.
	(3) Accordingly—
	(a) section 16A(8) of the 1998 Act shall apply to a person taking up Ministerial office as a Northern Ireland Minister as if it referred to the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b); and
	(b) section 32(3)(a) of the 1998 Act shall apply as if, in the case of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers, it referred to the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b).'.
	Amendment 5, page 8, line 15, at end insert
	'but within a period of six months beginning with the day of first meeting of the Assembly'.
	Amendment 6, page 8, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
	'(3) Sections 16A(8) and 32(3)(a) of the 1998 Act apply accordingly.
	(4) If the relevant ministerial office is not filled within the period specified in sub-paragraph (2) the Secretary of State shall assume the direction of the Department.'.
	Amendment 2, page 8, line 22, at end insert—
	 'Minister ceasing to hold office7A Paragraph 3D(11)(c) of Schedule 4A to the 1998 Act does not apply—
	(a) before a resolution is passed for the purposes of paragraph 8(1)(a) below, or
	(b) if no such resolution is passed, before 1 May 2012.'.
	Amendment 23, page 8, line 24, leave out paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.
	Amendment 9, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
	'(1A) In the event of the department being dissolved on 1 May 2012 or before, and neither of the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) have been fulfilled, the Secretary of State shall assume responsibility for policing and justice.'.
	Amendment 27, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
	'(10) If the department is dissolved at any time, the direction of the functions formerly performed by the department shall be undertaken by the Secretary of State.'.
	That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
	New clause 1— Expiry of sections 21A, 21B and 21C of and Schedule 4A to the 1998 Act—
	'After section 21C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is inserted:—
	 "Expiry of sections 21A, 21B and Schedule 4A
	21D (1) Unless, before 1 May 2012, the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) are met, then on 1 May 2012—
	(a) all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office (including any relevant Minister within the meaning of Schedule 4A);
	(b) any deputy minister or relevant junior minister within the meaning of Schedule 4A shall cease to hold office;
	(c) sections 21A, 21B and 21C and Schedule 4A shall be repealed;
	(d) notwithstanding any provision of any Act of the Assembly to the contrary, there shall be only one ministerial office in respect of a Northern Ireland department exercising functions consisting wholly or mainly of devolved policing and justice functions;
	(e) all ministerial offices are to be filled under section 18 of the 1998 Act.
	(2) The first condition is an Act of the Assembly has provided for a Northern Ireland department exercising functions consisting wholly or mainly of devolved policing and justice functions.
	(3) The second condition is that any provision of the kind referred to in section 21A(3), (3A), (4), (5) or (5A) was enacted, it has been repealed.
	(4) The third condition is that a determination has been made under section 17 creating a single ministerial office in respect of the Northern Ireland department referred to in subsection (2).
	(5) The fourth condition is that all ministerial offices have been filled under section 18 of the 1998 Act.
	(6) The fifth condition is that an order referred to in section 4(2A) has entered into effect.".'.

Mark Durkan: As I said on Second Reading, and as Members will know very well, the SDLP does not have much of an appetite for clause 1. Indeed, we might have something of an allergy to it. However, as golfers apparently say, we must play the ball where it lies. We know what has been happening, and we know what will be happening.
	Despite our misgivings about the changes involving the appointment of Ministers and the damage that that will do to the agreement, we have tabled a number of amendments that we believe would make good some of the damage, and also provide for a more definite fall-back than is provided for in the Bill. Indeed, we have been told that the Bill contains no fall-back.
	Amendments 22 and 23 and new clause 1 are intended to deal with what will happen in 2011, and the possibility of an indefinite period with no Minister, following an Assembly election. Amendment 22 proposes that, rather than there being an election after seven days, the d'Hondt system would be reverted to: the fall-back would be as per the agreement. We believe that that would help to concentrate minds, because if parties wanted to avoid the d'Hondt option they would ensure that there was agreement on the election of a Minister, so the issue would not arise. The amendment would, we hope, help to avoid the difficulty that I described earlier.
	Amendment 23 and new clause 1 deal with the 2012 problem: dissolution. The Minister said that the House was leaving all this to devolution, after which it would be a matter for the parties. However, the Bill does not only devolve; on 1 May it will dissolve as well, and we consider that wrong, rash and dangerous. We do not assume that there will be "sweetness and light" agreements before that date, and that people will not play all sorts of games of political brinkmanship on the way. We want a fall-back position guaranteeing that a Department will continue so that people can be assured of stability.

Peter Robinson: So that the hon. Gentleman does not put an unhelpful construction on it, let me explain why the outcome was agreed. It was recognised that, as policing and justice had not been dealt with in any Assembly for decades, it would be best to have the operation up and running under an agreed system: let us see where the problems lie and where the improvements can be made, and then we can design the more permanent model. No ulterior motives were involved.

Mark Durkan: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have also heard him say on many occasions that the DUP does not want to go into devolution in circumstances in which there would not be a default position. Here we have the devolution of justice without a clear default position. Some of us do not believe that devolution without default should mean returning to direct rule. Some of us do not want to pull the direct rule communication cord just because political games are going on. We tabled amendment 23 to make good the problem that I identified earlier, which I shall not rehearse again.
	Amendments 19, 20 and 21 relate to a point touched on by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael): the role of the nominating officer. Previous Government models for various forms of election of a Justice Minister allowed the nominating officer to consent to the nominations, and also to have a role in the removal of a party member from office. That is clearly absent here.
	A number of questions arise, including those put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. There is nothing in the Bill to protect a Minister of Justice from being ousted from office on a pretty capricious basis. The fall-back—or non fall-back—position in paragraph 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 is to do with whether or not the Minister and deputy Minister can be from the two largest parties. Even if an Alliance Member had occupied the post on a transition basis, they might be discriminated against and eliminated from the fall-back model. That is why the Alliance should not, perhaps, trust everything in these arrangements.
	There is another question for the Alliance party. It might not want a role in terms of the nominating officer and nominating or appointing the transitional Minister, because it might want to be able to say that they are not an Alliance Minister—it might want to be able to say that it is still the principled Opposition, and that it has not nominated or directly appointed a Minister, but that they are an Assembly nominee. Therefore, the Alliance would protect its position as being the Opposition, as it would claim. Our amendments are intended to address these matters.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that at present the Assembly works in such a way that if a party in the Executive decides it wants to be in opposition, it simply says it is opposed to everything? Therefore, on the point about a proposed Alliance Minister saying that, because there was no nominating officer, their party is divorced from the situation, that happens even when there is a nominating officer—and even the hon. Gentleman's party denies any responsibility for Executive decisions on occasions, even though it has been participating in that.

Mark Durkan: I have observed before that irony in politics is usually just hypocrisy with panache. A Democratic Unionist party Member is complaining about parties with Members in the Government engaging at the same time in some Opposition tactics in the Assembly, but the DUP did that in the past, and it still does it. The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister of Education to change the budget even though it had already been decided, and brought motions before the Assembly, so we will take no lessons from him on that.
	That other Members have already asked about the nominating officer issue adds to the currency and relevance of our amendments. We do not particularly want to press them to a Division; we just want to find out more about the thinking on these matters. Our reservations about clause 1 are known. We have tabled these amendments to try to reduce, mitigate and make good some of those concerns, and to undo and limit some of the uncertainty that the Bill is impregnated with.

William McCrea: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is learning so many lessons from the DUP about ingenuity and excellence in strategy. A colleague of his in another place suggested he would have to be up early in the morning and have his breakfast a lot earlier before he would ever be able to outwit the DUP, but if he remains a Member for a long time he may learn a lot more about how to progress on the political scene.
	I wish to talk about the SDLP's new clause 1 and about d'Hondt being the fall-back position if there is no agreement by May 2012. Let us be quite frank about this: the intention of those who want a real democracy in Northern Ireland is to move away from d'Hondt. We do not want to replicate a situation in which we have mandatory coalitions. Some Labour Members mentioned that to have a good system of Government, we need a vibrant Opposition, and I agree. Therefore, having everyone go into a mandatory Opposition and all the major parties are in the Government is not the best way to govern people. A voluntary coalition is completely different: those in government could have policies that are in line with each other, and those with different policies could oppose them and present their views before the people. That is a vibrant democracy, and although some might suggest that we keep on with and replicate the d'Hondt system, I believe the people of Northern Ireland want to move away from that.
	Let me make it abundantly clear to the hon. Member for Foyle that the November agreement was predicated on there being no fall-back provisions in place after 2012, because in reality the fall-back is this House. Why, as an honourable Member of this House, would he not want that to be the fall-back position? Why would he not wish to rely on the sovereignty of this Parliament? I cannot understand why he is afraid of that situation.
	In the current circumstances, we do not want the Justice Minister to be selected by the d'Hondt system and that is why these arrangements are being put in place. Let us be frank about this; we must make things abundantly clear. The Democratic Unionist party does not want, and promised the people that there would not be, a Sinn Fein Member as the Justice and Policing Minister. We will not allow such a situation to develop—that was part of our election manifesto and promise to the people. The process that has been spoken about will ensure that, as the DUP has a veto on that part. Without apology we have a veto on that part, in the same way as the Government ensured that there would be the triple lock veto over the timing of moving forward on the final process to the devolution of policing and justice. This House ensured that that would be put in place. We will hold this House to it and, thus, my colleagues and I shall be totally opposing new clause 1.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have tabled three amendments, and I wish to amplify them. I still hope that I will be able to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson); to the extent that I contributed to the squeezing out, I apologise to him and his constituents. This clause stand part debate allows us to paint a wide canvas in our debate anyway.
	I perhaps unintentionally caused some levity when I referred to the Justice Minister going down the steps of Stormont. The serious point is that if there is a Justice Minister, there could be a sudden, unforeseen vacancy, as a result of either a resignation or an accident—we cannot dismiss this issue. The problem is that such occasions often occur at the least convenient time, and there is the possibility of a big political row or crisis in Northern Ireland. Let us assume, for the purposes of this debate, that the Alliance party has filled this post. It might not suit the party, at such a moment, to offer a replacement, or the replacement might not be acceptable to the other political parties of Northern Ireland, and thus there could be a paralysis for a significant period.
	May I buttress my argument by pointing out that when the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) stepped down as the first First Minister, that created a hiatus—a period when it was not possible to agree, for some time, normal government arrangements? Had he not stepped down, that probably would not have happened, but the occasion invited some people, who are probably not in this Chamber, to orchestrate difficulties. I foresee a situation in which this would happen as a surprise and without notice. I put the following question to the Committee: can there be a Justice Ministry with no Minister? There is no jurisdiction in the democratic, free world that does not instantly replace a Justice Minister—it is done with dispatch.

Nigel Dodds: I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. With reference to the events of last summer, it needs to be put on the record that there was a smooth enough transition in the actual appointment of the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. To come back to the point that I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), what happened subsequently was that Sinn Fein decided—this was nothing to do with the process of the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—to block meetings of the Executive on a political basis. We wanted to proceed with those meetings.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting the record straight, but that does not detract from my point. It was the occasion of the change that gave Sinn Fein an opportunity to cause problems, and that could happen again. We need to build in some contingency provision should such a situation occur and there is a sudden and unforeseen vacancy between now and the next Stormont elections, never mind 2012. The House should consider that if there is no prospect of an immediate appointment to the position—by which I mean two or three days, or at most a week—the default position should be that the Prime Minister would appoint someone with the power to appear before Members at Stormont and answer their questions, and to pilot legislation, although without voting rights.
	Such a provision is necessary, because at the moment of his or her demise the Justice Minister could be in the middle of taking legislation through Stormont, and that would have to be suspended, even though it might be important or even—dare I say?—urgent legislation. That is the reasoning behind amendment 25. If a vacancy for a Justice Minister were not filled with due dispatch, as would be the norm in every jurisdiction in the free world, someone would be appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. If that provision were on the statute book, it would help to focus the minds of those who make up the body politic of Northern Ireland to resolve the issue themselves.
	After the 2011 Stormont election, it is possible that the Assembly will comprise only designated Unionists and designated nationalists. That could lead to paralysis again, so the sanction of dissolution, and thus another election, should exist if the new Stormont cannot resolve this Executive appointment. That sanction exists for the rest of the d'Hondt Executive, and this Bill ring-fences the Justice Minister by saying that the sanction would not apply. That would again invite those who are not in this Chamber to cause political aggravation. We need to strike out that provision, as amendment 26 provides.
	The parliamentary draftsmen used peculiar wording in the provision to the effect that the Department would be dissolved. That is surprising, because a Department does not dissolve. A Minister might disappear, and paralysis might ensue, but the actual functions of a Justice Department would still be there—the civil servants, the lawyers and the bricks and mortar. We need provision for 2012, because if the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were not able to resolve a post-2012 situation, the default position should be a reversion to direct rule for that particular Department, and it is only good practice to put that in the Bill.
	Those are the points that I wanted to raise and it seems to me that my amendment 27 would be a sensible solution. If we had had more time and a proper Committee stage, we could have explored this issue. In any event, those of us who have tabled amendments are inviting those in another place, before the Bill arrives there, to discuss these options with the Secretary of State and to prepare beefed-up amendments that encourage, coax and provide for the Northern Ireland Assembly to see that today's intentions are enduring and that once the powers for justice and policing have been devolved, they will not be subject to a hiccup or a hiatus that might be unnecessarily caused by people who might not be here.

Laurence Robertson: I want to speak fairly briefly, because we are short of time and I raised one or two issues on Second Reading. As I said, we welcome this model. It appears to us to be the best of the eight models, but we are concerned about one or two things. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has reinforced the arguments about the open-ended nature of the situation. If policing and justice were devolved later this year—I hope that that will happen if the circumstances are right—how long would it take for a Minister to be in position? The hon. Gentleman is right that any Department needs a head, whether we call them a leader, a director, a Minister or something else. Otherwise, how can it function? If it can function perfectly well without that head, why should we have any Ministers at all? That is the logical conclusion of the argument.
	We believe that there has to be a head of Department. We also believe that because of the special and difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, and because this move is ground breaking, it is inconceivable that there should not be a Minister to oversee the Department. After an Assembly election, there are seven days in which all the other Ministers can be appointed, yet there is no time limit for this particular appointment. Of course, given the difficulties and sensitivities, it could take more than the normal seven days to fill the position. We also recognise that discussions have been going on about who would be suitable—perhaps I should say acceptable—in the role. It could be that that person did not win their seat back after an election, so we would have to start all over again. It could take a bit longer than seven days.
	The time limit that we are suggesting is six months. According to the discussions that we have had, that is probably a long time, too. It probably is too long, but I wanted to put down some time limit and it is very difficult to come up with one. Given the record of deadlines being broken in Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is not in his place but has contributed to the debate, famously broke two absolutely unbreakable deadlines the year before last—we know that it is difficult to impose deadlines. However, we already have a deadline for the appointment of the other Ministers and I suggest that we ought to have a deadline for the appointment of this Minister. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, that would concentrate minds on what is absolutely necessary, if nothing else.
	We are concerned about the immediate appointment if devolution takes place before the next Assembly elections. We are also concerned about the appointment after the next Assembly elections, so we tabled amendments 5, 6 and 8, which address those points. Amendment 8 refers to the time limits that can be taken to fill the office once the devolution order has been made, while amendment 5 requires the office to be filled within six months of the Assembly's first meeting after an Assembly election.
	In amendment 6, we propose a default position. This is a difficult matter, as we want policing and justice to be devolved, as I have said repeatedly. It would therefore be deeply unsatisfactory to return the powers to the Secretary of State, but given the nature of the problem in Northern Ireland, that would probably be the least bad of all the options. The hon. Member for Thurrock has made his own suggestions about a fall-back position. I listened to him extremely carefully and do not have violent disagreements with what he said, but I think that I prefer our amendments.
	Amendment 9 refers to what would happen after 1 May 2012 if the Justice Department were dissolved. Again, I would consider it rather unsatisfactory if that happened; I would very much prefer it if the Assembly voted to extend the present model beyond 2012 or if it chose another one, but once again we need to consider what a fall-back position might be. In amendment 9, I have proposed the same one that would apply if the Ministers were not appointed, either now or after the Assembly election—that is, that control of policing and justice would come back to this place. Again, I think that that would be highly unsatisfactory, although I do not believe that it will happen. The delicate negotiations that have allowed us to get as far as we have lead me to believe that we are starting to build on ground that is rather more substantial than sand. I hope that we do not get to the position where the proposed fall-back would apply.
	Like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I do not know exactly what would be dissolved. If the Department were dissolved, who would give direction and carry out the administration? I listened very carefully as the Minister of State, who has momentarily left the Chamber, explained what would happen. He said that the Assembly would be charged with coming up with another model or reaching some further agreement. However, if no agreement has been reached by 1 May 2012, which is almost three years off, will the parties involved be able to come to another agreement so very quickly after that date? Alternatively, will the whole structure be in chaos?
	With respect to the people who work in Departments with responsibility for matters such as tourism and so on, I point out that we are dealing with matters that are substantially more difficult and dangerous for the people of Northern Ireland and, given what has happened in years gone by, possibly for people in Great Britain as well. Having listened to what the Minister of State said, I am not entirely satisfied that we can leave the Bill as it stands, and I think that I would prefer a fall-back position to be put in place.
	I do not intend to speak at any length to amendment 7, which is a probing amendment to ensure the independence of the PSNI and the judiciary in Northern Ireland. It addresses the concerns that have existed in Northern Ireland for a number of years and which have prevented the devolution of policing and justice. I would very much welcome the Minister's observations on that amendment as well.

Alistair Carmichael: I wish to speak to amendments 2, 3 and 4, which stand in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. First, however, I should like to pick up a couple of points made by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), both of whom have tabled amendments concerning the post-2012 scenario.
	I listened with great care to both speeches, and I understand the logic of the reasoning, but I believe that putting into the Bill a provision that envisages the future involvement of Whitehall and Westminster in criminal justice matters in Northern Ireland would send the wrong political signals. Given the political history of Northern Ireland, I think that the Government would be ill advised to countenance the possibility that devolved criminal justice powers could head back here at some future stage.
	Amendments 2, 3 and 4 express concerns to which I referred on Second Reading, but I will speak about each of them individually. I have already placed my concerns on record, and the Minister explained the Government's position on those concerns. He told us in his winding-up speech on Second Reading that those whom the Assembly appoints, it should have the power to remove, because other Ministers, who are effectively appointed by their party leaders, can be removed by their party leaders. I accept that that has a legislative and constitutional symmetry, but that should not be our only consideration; indeed, it is by no means the most important consideration. If legislative neatness had been our only consideration hitherto when passing Bills in this place, an awful lot of laws would have taken a very different shape.
	The danger is that, in pursuit of legislative neatness, we might ignore or not give sufficient importance to the end product, which must surely be the devolution of criminal justice in a stable and sustainable way. I put it to the House, and directly to the Minister and the Secretary of State, that the model that they have put forward today would be neither stable nor sustainable. It would be unacceptable to leave a Justice Minister in a position in which his or her removal could be effected in a different way from that of every other Minister in the Executive. That would be unacceptable for any Minister. If the political operation of every Minister is to be of equal standing, the stability and continuity of the positions ought to be the same.

Peter Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that although the situation for the Justice Minister is different, it is actually stronger? Surely someone who is nominated by the nominating officer of a party does not have the same standing as someone who has the cross-community support of the Assembly; it would therefore be harder to disqualify the latter from their position. On top of that, would it not be very foolish of somebody to take up the position unless they had settled, fairly clearly, that they would not be sacked on some frivolous account?

Alistair Carmichael: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman makes that point in good faith, but first, it concentrates more on the powers of appointment than on the powers of removal, and secondly I do not think that the circumstances that he mentioned do strengthen the Justice Minister's position, because whatever undertakings might be given at the time of the appointment, none of us knows what is around the corner. Earlier, the Secretary of State spoke about frivolous removal, but the removal need not be frivolous. It might be removal on the basis of substantial and important political issues. No other Minister can be removed in that way or for that reason, and I see no reason why the Justice Minister should be put in a different position.
	As we all know from our daily experience in this place, the fact is that Justice Ministers and Home Secretaries are often called on to take very difficult decisions—decisions that probably, in an ideal world, they would choose not to take. They do so because they are in a secure position, however, and because they have to. If a Justice Minister is vulnerable to a populist movement within the Assembly, they will not be able to take the difficult decisions that a Justice Minister might be required to take. In that most important sense, the standing of the Minister within the Executive is diminished.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman describes a situation that it was never intended would occur, and nor does the legislation intend any vote of no confidence or removal of the Justice Minister to occur. The removal of the Justice Minister would not result from some popular mood in the Assembly. The removal would first require that 30 Members of the Assembly—of course, they could come from one party—would table a motion, but that motion would have to command cross-community support, so it would not be a case of one party or even a couple of parties simply taking umbrage against the Minister. Surely, a frivolous removal of the Minister would not be possible.

Alistair Carmichael: Again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are not just talking about frivolous removal. We could be talking about removal for very good reason. It might be a substantial political issue that commanded broad public support, as these situations often can, on a day-to-day basis. He says, "Would not be removed, would not be removed, would not be removed", but I say "could". From the point of view of the Minister's position in the Assembly, that is unacceptable, because it is not a stable position.

William McCrea: Surely this Minister would be more protected than any other Minister, because a nominating Minister can sack any Minister from his party at any time. One person can sack that Minister. But how could anyone defend a situation where the Justice Minister has lost the confidence of the House? Why would he be expected to stay?

Alistair Carmichael: I put that question back to the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to number of Members of the Legislative Assembly concerning the position of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and his comments on climate change.  [Interruption.] He may not have lost the confidence of his own party, but I do not detect a great deal of confidence among the other parties. There is also the position of Catriona Ruane. I do not think, all things being equal, those Ministers could truly be said to maintain the full confidence of the Assembly. It is a consequence of the way in which the Executive is constituted that these issues are never properly tested, because everybody knows that the Ministers are impregnable. If those Ministers are impregnable, the Justice Minister should be put on exactly the same footing.
	It is highly unlikely that an Alliance Minister would take the job on in these circumstances. If the Secretary of State devolves criminal justice in such a way that an Alliance Minister will not take it on, what is the point of doing it at all?

David Simpson: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) seemed to think that he had prevented me from speaking earlier and consequently had a guilty conscience. I assure him that I will speak to him afterwards. No, I am joking. His conscience can be clear, because it is the Government who introduced the guillotine, and they are to blame. It was impossible for hon. Members either to speak or to speak for the length of time that they might have wished. I shall be brief, but I hope that you, Sir Michael, will give me some leeway.
	I want to make it clear that the DUP's position on policing and justice has been consistent. Furthermore, it is well known to Members of this House and to the public in Northern Ireland. We support the devolution of policing and justice powers, as long as it is done in the right way, at the right time, under the right circumstances and within the right framework. That has been our approach, and it is the right one. It is a measured approach that gives the greatest chance of success in the medium and longer terms.
	I turn briefly to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee's report; I understand that the Social Democratic and Labour party is well represented on that Committee. One of the Committee's recommendations is that there should be one Department. That, of course, is the Democratic Unionist party's position. Recommendation 9 states that, until May 2012, any Member elected as the Minister of Justice would require a majority of Assembly Members, present and voting, including a majority of designated nationalists and a majority of designated Unionists. The arrangements would be subject to a sunset clause, which would bring them to an end not later than 2012.

Mark Durkan: indicated dissent.

David Simpson: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but members of his party are represented on the Committee.
	The Committee went on to say that following a period of operation, and prior to May 2012, the arrangements could be reviewed, that permanent arrangements would be put in place by May 2012, and that there would be no fall-back arrangements. That, it said, would require the political parties to agree a way forward by that time.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman cites the report, but misrepresents the SDLP's position. We did not endorse that position, as was reflected in the debate in the Assembly. We tabled many amendments in the Committee that were not taken.

David Simpson: I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party voted against in the Committee.
	The Committee also stated in paragraph 36 that for the duration of the interim arrangements—until May 2012—the DUP and Sinn Fein would not nominate any Member from their parties as the Minister of Justice.
	Those recommendations reflect and uphold a key DUP position. What would they mean in real terms? I notice that the SDLP claims that all this means the tearing up of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. I understood, however, that that agreement had been binned once the St. Andrews agreement came in; indeed, only this morning the leader of the SDLP made that very point on BBC Radio Ulster.
	I do not know why anyone is surprised that the DUP should be in the business of dismantling any old and failed system. It is important that we in Northern Ireland get this issue right. It is important that policing is dealt with correctly because we have to face many major policing problems in the coming months and years. As has been mentioned today, there is a massive shortfall—possibly running into hundreds of millions of pounds—in relation to the policing budget.
	I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) said. We will oppose the SDLP amendments.

Sammy Wilson: I want to deal first with amendments 5, 6 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I have to say that they are rather strange. His first amendment refers to a situation in which no Justice Minister has been appointed. If that happened before 2011 under devolution, what would the fall-back position be? Would the Secretary of State take over the post? If, after an election in 2011, the post could not be filled, what would happen?
	Of course, we would be looking for a Minister only if there had been agreement and there was sufficient confidence that we could devolve policing and justice in Northern Ireland. That would require us to be assured that there was confidence in the community not only that the Assembly would exercise the powers but about the person likely to be appointed Minister. That would be determined by our knowing which party or person was likely to be acceptable. The amendment would require us to consider agreeing to devolve policing and justice and then hope that we might be able to sort out who the person was going to be. That scenario is never likely to happen.
	I turn to the hon. Gentleman's second amendment. We can prepare for the first step in devolving policing and justice following an election in 2011 and see whether we can agree a suitable candidate, but an arrangement could be put in place before 2011 that might not be possible thereafter because of the outcome of the election. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has made it clear that my party wants policing and justice to be devolved only if there is long-term stability and confidence that it will be able to continue.
	Let us envisage the situation that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury suggests—that we cannot agree on someone to take over as Minister. Six months is a very long period to leave a Department without someone in charge, but if we shortened the period and said, "If, after two weeks, you haven't got a Minister, you've got to have somebody in charge of the Department, so let it be the Secretary of State", that would be an odd, and very dubious, constitutional position. A threat of powers reverting to Westminster, with Westminster looking after the Department for much longer, would concentrate minds much more effectively than the possibility of the Secretary of State taking over the powers, even if we accepted that dubious constitutional arrangement.
	For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendments are necessary, or that in the worst-case scenario they would be the best way forward. The default position whereby powers would revert to Westminster would be more effective in concentrating minds.
	Amendments 3 and 4, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, deal with loss of confidence in a Minister. Under existing arrangements, there are no consequences to somebody putting down a motion of no confidence—people stick down a motion of no confidence just because they do not believe something that somebody else believes. If a motion of no confidence does not have to be tested, people stick them down rather frivolously; provided one keeps the support of the nominating officer, such frivolous behaviour can go on. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) is looking at me; I do not know whether that is because I have lost his confidence.  [ Interruption. ] I will not push that point too far.
	The mechanism for appointing the Justice Minister requires cross-community support and the support of the Assembly. If that is the method of appointment, surely we should use the same method when we no longer wish that Minister to be in place. I was appointed a Minister because I had the confidence of the nominating officer; equally, I can be removed if I do not have the confidence of that officer. If someone has been appointed Justice Minister because they had the confidence of the Assembly on a cross-community basis—not because one person said that they would be a good person for the job—why would it not be effective to be able to remove them through that same mechanism?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman has moved on from the point on which I wanted to intervene, which was the fact that he clearly feels that motions for removal are moved capriciously or frivolously. Should the House assume that we would have his support for our amendment 3, which allows the Assembly to amend its Standing Orders to limit the number of removal motions that could be moved during a period that might be prescribed in the Standing Orders?

Sammy Wilson: There is a limiting mechanism already, which is twofold. First, for a motion to be tabled in the first place, the Minister would not have to have annoyed one person, or a small group of people; the Minister would have had to have taken decisions or acted in such a way that he or she had annoyed at least 30 people. For that motion to be pursued, the Minister would have had to have lost the confidence of the 30 people who had signed the motion, and cross-community support from throughout the Assembly. That Minister would have had to have annoyed people from the Unionist side and the nationalist side of the Assembly. I cannot see anything more limiting than that, and in those circumstances it is unlikely that there would be a host of motions for frivolous reasons, such as the Minister making a wrong decision about how money should be spent or about who should be appointed. There would have to be more serious grounds than that.

Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that that mechanism is already available for other uses in the Assembly? It has never been used, despite the instances that have arisen. There was no attempt to use it against him for his views on climate change, and it was not used against the Minister of Education for her lack of direction on academic selection. It could have been used in either of those cases, for political reasons or for the purpose of disengaging the Minister concerned, but it has never been used yet.

Sammy Wilson: I believe that the reason it has not been used is the very reason that I have given. I therefore believe that amendment 3 is unnecessary, because there are already mechanisms in place to prevent the situation that it envisages from occurring.
	I turn to the Social Democratic and Labour party's amendment 21, which would require the nominating officer's consent to a Member's nomination as Justice Minister. I suppose that a lot of the matters that I have mentioned are interlinked. The whole point of the method of appointing the Justice Minister is that it is not to be a party decision or an appointment made on the basis of a preference expressed by one person, the party nominating officer. It is to be made by the Assembly because it has a particular reason to have confidence in the person chosen. The fact that policing and justice was not a devolved matter in the first place indicates that it was a much more sensitive issue than any of those that are currently being addressed by the Executive and by Ministers and Departments of the Northern Ireland Government. The appointment is to be made not by the nominating officer but by the Assembly in a cross-community vote. The requirement of the nominating officer's consent therefore not only seems unnecessary but would give the impression that the Minister was in post only because he commanded the support of that one individual, rather than because he had the support of the Assembly.
	That is also the reason why I do not accept the need for the Liberals' amendment on the removal of the Justice Minister. It will be a sensitive post, and removal from it will require a large number of people in the Assembly to have not just been annoyed by the Minister but totally lost confidence in him. It is important that that mechanism is in place, given the sensitivity of the post. It will be a different post from others, and the Minister will be appointed in a different way and require a different level of support. Equally, he must therefore be held to account in a different way. For that reason, we will not wish to support the amendments.

Shaun Woodward: I begin by thanking hon. Members for their support on Second Reading, which sent an important message from the House.
	Clause 1 provides for schedule 1, which makes provision for the new departmental model proposed by the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The Bill will insert that model into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in addition to the existing models. It does not require that it be used, but simply adds it to the menu.
	Schedule 1 is split into three parts. Part 1 deals with preliminary issues, in effect positioning the schedule within the list of excepted matters in schedule 2 to the 1998 Act. Part 2 amends section 21A of, and schedule 4A to, the 1998 Act to make provision for the new departmental model. The defining features of that model are that it would consist of a single Minister, nominated by any member of the Assembly, elected by a cross-community vote in the Assembly and removed in the same way. The Justice Minister would not count towards parties' allocation of seats on the Executive under the d'Hondt formula.
	I recognise that concerns have been expressed in a number of quarters about whether the arrangements provided for in the Bill for appointing and removing the Justice Minister are appropriate and proportionate. I will try to deal with those concerns, but let me begin by saying that the Government take them very seriously. We understand why hon. Members may have concerns, but I hope that it will be possible for me to alleviate some of them.
	Amendments 19 to 21, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his party colleagues, would require any Member nominated for the post of Justice Minister to have the consent of the nominating officer of their party before that nomination could take place and would provide for the nominating officer of the relevant party to have the ability to dismiss the Justice Minister.
	The role of the nominating officer in the process of appointing and removing the Justice Minister is not a new idea, as has been said this afternoon. Indeed, it was at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that such a role was made a feature of the other models set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the model that we are setting out in the Bill is not bound to reflect what happens in the other models, and such a role as proposed by the hon. Gentleman was not a feature of the model set out in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee report, which was approved by the Assembly on 20 January. In bringing forward legislation setting out that model, the Government have rightly been guided by the recommendations of that committee and by the views of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as co-chairs of the Executive.
	I recognise that the Assembly's endorsement of the AERC report was not unanimous—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to draw that to my attention—and that concerns were expressed during the debate on that report. However, the fact remains that the report—and, therefore, the model set out in the Bill—was approved in a cross-community vote in the Assembly by 51 to 16. That is a significant seal of approval for the model from the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, any departure from the structure set out in that report and endorsed by the Assembly would be a departure from the wishes of the Assembly. It is for that reason that we should accept the wishes of the democratic majority in the Assembly and not accept those amendments.
	Amendment 7, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and his colleagues, also relates to the appointment of the Minister. The amendment would prevent the Justice Minister from taking up office until he had made
	"a solemn declaration to respect the operational independence of the Chief Constable...and...judiciary".
	I understand the basis for amendment 7 and support the sentiments behind it. The protections that it seeks, however, are already provided elsewhere in legislation. Section 1 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 already places a duty on those with responsibility for the administration of justice to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, while the pledge of office contains a commitment to uphold the rule of law, based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to replicate guarantees that are already provided elsewhere in legislation. Similarly, we believe that the Justice Minister should be subject to the same pledge as the Executive Ministers.
	Amendments 2 and 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), pose a number of interesting questions. It is therefore appropriate to say a word or two about his remarks about the Justice Minister. He put forward the name of an MLA, but it is not for me, as the Secretary of State, to decide who the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Executive and the Assembly choose to be Justice Minister. What we are debating this afternoon is a model that can be used. I advocate that he shows a little caution, rather than perhaps being too predisposed at this stage to assume who may or may not be chosen. Yes, candidates are talked about, but what matters now is creating the model. It is not for this House to decide who should make that decision.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State will recall that I made that very point in my remarks on Second Reading. However, the model that we put in the Bill must be stable and sustainable, and I put it to him that what we have here is not.

Shaun Woodward: Let me try to find a way to come back to that.
	Amendment 2 seeks to prevent the Assembly from resolving to remove the Justice Minister in the transitional period up to 1 May 2012. I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would argue that that is for reasons of fairness and sustainability, to use the term that he has just used. Amendment 4 provides that the Justice Minister can be removed only if the Assembly resolves that the Minister has been convicted of a criminal offence; has become bankrupt or made an agreement with his creditors; is not committed to non-violent and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions. Those are all issues that I think we can understand, and the hon. Gentleman puts them forward in the context of pursuing fairness and stability. Let us see whether they will provide those qualities.
	As I have already said, the arrangements in the Bill relating to the appointment and removal of the Justice Minister reflect the explicit recommendations of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which were voted on and endorsed by the Assembly on 20 January. What would happen if the House were to accept an amendment that railroaded a decision made in the Assembly, on the basis that the hon. Gentleman just did not like it, and that it could be unfair? A democratic majority on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee has considered the provision and produced a report, and the matter has been debated in the Assembly. It was voted on and was passed not by a small majority but by a significant one. Can we really say, "I don't think that's good enough"? If the test is to be stability, that would be the quickest way of installing instability at the very beginning, before those in Northern Ireland have even begun to discuss what shape or form the Justice Department might take.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: May I remind the Secretary of State that, on many occasions in many debates in this House, when right hon. and hon. Members and I were opposed to proposals that we were unhappy about arising from the Belfast agreement and other initiatives, we were told time and again by the Liberal Democrats that we had to accept them because a majority had voted for them? Are there not double standards operating here?  [ Interruption. ]

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Shaun Woodward: I acknowledge that, but I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to intervene as well.

Alistair Carmichael: I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has given the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) his answer. He said that the instances to which the hon. Gentleman refers were all to do with the referendum. However, there is a constitutional principle at stake here: it is this House and this Parliament that devolve power. While any indication from the Assembly is highly persuasive and certainly not to be dismissed lightly, the final decision rests with us. We do not subcontract our responsibility in that way.

Shaun Woodward: With huge respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have not devolved our responsibility. I am not asking the House to devolve responsibility this afternoon. I am asking it to add an additional model to the existing number of models, from which the Assembly will be able to choose, if it so wishes, to set up and use as a model for a Department of Justice. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the democratic structure that this House democratically put in place in previous legislation, which means that, even if the Assembly manages to find agreement and establish a Department of Justice, it will be up to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to put forward a motion in the Assembly and for the Assembly to vote on it, after which—the hon. Gentleman is right—this House will have to make a decision to devolve. He really must separate out what is being done in this legislation with what might happen if the democratically elected Members of the Assembly at Stormont decide at some future date to exercise their authority.

David Cairns: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to continue along the path and treat what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has said with just a pinch of salt? We regularly get lectures from his party about issues that have a majority in the Scottish Parliament; that should dictate what is happening here, whether we are talking about opposition to identity cards or any other issue. My right hon. Friend is going down exactly the right path, and he is correct to say that, in the current circumstances, rejecting what the elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly recommended to us after considering the issues in detail would be going down the path to instability.

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	To pick up the remarks that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made at the beginning of his Second Reading speech and at other points this afternoon, he has been a very candid friend in this entire process. The amendments are entirely noble in seeking to probe the matter, and I will try to reassure him. I know that his interest is, in the end, only in securing stability in Northern Ireland and nothing other than that.
	The hon. Gentleman has in mind—I do not know whether this is true of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Assembly or anybody else in Northern Ireland—which candidate he prefers. He has mentioned David Ford, who has been referred to several times this afternoon. Let me say a few more things about the amendment in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded, on balance, not to press it.
	We all have enormous respect for David Ford and recognise the role that he has played. However, we must put on record the opportunity that he had to play a role when he and his Alliance party colleagues spoke in the debate in January. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has raised the principled point that it is important for this House to pay significant attention to what has happened and perhaps to run in the opposite direction from the decision democratically taken in January.
	If that issue were really the cause of the unfairness and instability that the hon. Gentleman worries about, one would expect the Alliance party and David Ford to make quite a lot of it, and one would certainly expect it to have featured centrally in David Ford's remarks in the January debate. With that in mind, I re-read last night the  Hansard report of that debate. I looked to see what was said and particularly at what David Ford said. In fact, he did not say a word about this particular issue. He said:
	"Certainly, my party broadly welcomes the report because there is little in it as it stands with which to disagree."
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, the recommendation for this particular power to be used in this particular way for appointment and removal is explicitly made in the report.
	David Ford also said:
	"The Alliance Party has always considered the timing of devolution of policing and justice to be condition-led, rather than calendar-led."
	He recognised the importance of the conditions, and he is a man of fine principle. What, then, did he proceed to say? He said:
	"By any stretch, however, the point has been reached when progress must be led by the calendar and conditions. In that context, it is pleasant to be able broadly to welcome such a constructive and positive report."
	He also said:
	"The Alliance party wants the devolution of policing and justice to happen as soon as possible and practicable."
	In other words, he provided a great deal of support for the report.
	I am simply saying to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that if his concern was such a problem, why did it not appear in the Assembly debate? I accept that the issue is important, but it was not raised in the debate and did not concern those who were present. Given that we are not asking for devolution this afternoon but are merely seeking to create an additional model, we should be very careful before railroading such a consideration through.

Patrick Cormack: If I may say so, the Secretary of State is replying to the debate on the amendments in exemplary fashion. He is, very properly, taking his time to do so, but does not this illustrate the nonsense of today's timetable? Here we are, considering the first group of amendments. He is behaving as a Secretary of State should—seeking to respond, to persuade, to explain, and to deal adequately and properly with amendments. He has been on his feet since 5.48 pm. No criticism could possibly be directed at him, yet in less than an hour, all debate on the Bill in the House will have finished. It really is not good enough.

Shaun Woodward: I hear the hon. Gentleman, although, as he knows, we had that debate earlier. Indeed, for reasons that I respect, but perhaps do not agree with, it took considerable time that we might otherwise have used.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He is being generous with his time, if little else. I concur with the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) as far as they relate to the timetable, but if this is dealing with amendments in an exemplary fashion, he is setting the bar rather low.
	The Secretary of State speaks about respect for David Ford, then deals with his actions in the Assembly debate in a way that I think rather lacks a degree of respect, which I am looking for. If the Secretary of State is seeking to persuade me not to press the amendments, he is going about it in the wrong way. Is he really saying that, because of that one speech, the position of the Alliance party is bound thereafter for all time, or that I, as a Front-Bench spokesman in this House, should necessarily be bound? If that is the height of his argument, it is not impressive.

Shaun Woodward: It is difficult to respond to that rationally, but I will do my best. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I am working on the facts and the speeches that were made in the Assembly. It is not my responsibility what Mr. Ford says or does not say; I can only report what he has said. In reporting what he has said, it is perfectly clear to me that he had the opportunity, if this was an issue of such concern, to raise it. With huge respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not entirely irrational for me to have expected Mr. Ford to raise the issue at that time.
	All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that if his criteria are stability and fairness—if they are the two criteria we should operate on—what represents the greater unfairness and the greater instability? Those measures were not asked for in the Assembly. They have not been asked for by Mr. Ford and were not asked for by the Alliance party in the Assembly debate, which was voted on. Those measures are not a fair reflection of where the Assembly is. Therefore, with huge respect, if we choose to depart from that, we will have to accept the consequences. It is my judgment that, for that reason, we should not accept these proposals. However, I ask him to remain our candid friend. I know that he might not like what I have said this afternoon, but there is nothing I can add to what I have already said. For the reason I have given, the Government oppose the amendments, as they constitute a departure from the position that has been agreed.
	The Government recognise that there have been concerns that the power could be used vexatiously. That is why proposed new subsection 3D(13) of section 21A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended, which is in schedule 1 of the Bill and provided for at line 5 on page 7, restricts the circumstances in which a motion for removal can be tabled. It needs either to have the support of 30 or more MLAs or to be tabled by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. Those filters are the same as those that already apply to exclusion motions under section 30 of the 1998 Act.
	Amendment 3 would provide further protection against such vexatious requests by providing that the Assembly's Standing Orders may limit the number of removal motions that may be moved during any period. However, the power for the Assembly to regulate its own proceedings by Standing Orders is already provided by section 41 of the 1998 Act. It is therefore the Government's position that such an amendment is not required.

Peter Robinson: May I add my voice to the attempt to end any doubt on the part of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about what may lie behind the appointment of a Justice Minister by the method that is chosen, or indeed the removal of the Justice Minister? Neither the First nor the Deputy First Minister will wish to do anything other than give full support to a Justice Minister, especially a Justice Minister who will have been appointed by a more democratic method than any other Minister in the Executive and who will therefore be harder to dismiss.
	If there were any difficulty in the process, of course the prospective Justice Minister could talk to the First and Deputy First Ministers about what lay ahead to ensure a clear understanding of the nature of any potential removal from the job. If necessary, the Assembly itself—not the House of Commons—would have power to change its Standing Orders, through its Committee on Procedures, to make whatever relevant change was necessary.

Shaun Woodward: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman says is entirely fair, but I understand why there is concern, and I only hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will find that we can deal with his worries.
	Part 3 of schedule 1 deals with the arrangements that will apply during the initial period of devolution, up to 1 May 2012, if this new model is the one selected by the Assembly. Paragraph 6 disapplies, at the point of devolution, the normal requirement to re-run d'Hondt following the establishment of a new Department. Paragraph 7 waives, during the period up to 1 May 2012, the requirement that the Justice Minister be elected within the seven-day envelope set for the appointments of all other Ministers after an election. That avoids the possibility of another election being triggered automatically, and is intended as a prudent transitional arrangement to allow the Assembly flexibility to deal with the issue in the early years of devolution in a way that minimises disruption to devolution.
	Amendment 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), opposes that provision. I hope that what I have said, and what I will say in a moment, will persuade him not to press his amendment to a vote. I recognise, of course, that there are fears that both after the transfer of powers and after the 2011 election, the Assembly will be unable to agree on whom to appoint as Justice Minister, but a number of amendments put before the House deal with that difficulty.
	Amendments 5, 6, 8, 9 and 27 seek to provide that if a Justice Minister has not been appointed six months after responsibility for policing and justice has devolved or six months after the Assembly election in 2011, or if the Department is dissolved in 2012, the Secretary of State shall assume the direction of the Department or of the functions that it previously exercised. Amendment 25, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, provides that the Prime Minister should have power to appoint a Member of this House, or of another place, to act as Minister during even a short-term vacancy—due to a fall down the steps of Stormont, for example—in the office of Justice Minister.
	Although I acknowledge that having no Justice Minister in place is clearly unsustainable in the long term, if the Assembly were unable to appoint a Justice Minister it would be right for the Government and Parliament to have the maximum flexibility to decide both when and how to intervene if such action were ever required. In my view, it is unhelpful to speculate at this point on exactly what the nature of that intervention might be, and on when it might prove necessary.
	Such prescriptive amendments would prevent the necessary flexibility in those extreme circumstances should they ever arise, and for that reason the Government oppose them. However, I am happy to assure the House that, in doing so, we are not claiming that it would ever be acceptable simply to abandon responsibility to people in Northern Ireland in the event of what would effectively be a catastrophic breakdown of confidence. Rather, we are saying that we should have confidence in the parties which have themselves produced this agreement and which have, through their Assembly, produced the report that we hope will become this legislation, and that we should back and have the confidence of the parties behind it.
	Amendment 22, tabled by the hon. Members for Foyle, for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), adopts a different approach to the problem of the Justice Minister's post not being filled. It proposes that in the event of no Justice Minister's being appointed within seven days of an election, all Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office and will be reappointed by means of the d'Hondt mechanism, including the Justice Minister, irrespective of what other provision the Assembly has previously made for the selection of the Justice Minister.
	This approach is built on by new clause 1, which provides that unless certain conditions have been met before 1 May 2012, all Ministers will cease to hold office at that point and the posts, including that of Justice Minister, will be filled using d'Hondt. This is a significant and radical departure from the wishes of the Assembly as set out in recommendation 10 of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee report, which states that the appointment of the Justice Minister should be made by cross-community vote, at least in the transitional period up to May 2012. It also goes against the terms of the agreement between the First and Deputy First Ministers, which stated that there should be no presumption about the fall-back arrangements for appointing the Justice Minister in the absence of agreement in 2012. It is essential that the House grasp this point: one of the bases of the 18 November agreement is the assumption that there would be no fall-back arrangement. Therefore, to put anything else in its place would be to undermine the principles by which that agreement was reached. It is for this reason that the Government are unable to support these amendments.
	Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 provides that the Justice Department will automatically dissolve on 1 May 2012 unless the Assembly has before that date passed either a resolution, with cross-community support, to continue the Department under the same model, or an Act making new arrangements for the ministerial oversight of the Department, choosing any one of the pre-existing seven models.
	Amendment 23 seeks to remove paragraph 8. Doing so would remove the provision that gives effect to the part of the First and Deputy First Ministers' agreement that outlines that the initial arrangements for ministerial oversight of the Department should be sunset on 1 May 2012, and that there should be no presumption about what the oversight arrangements would be beyond that date. This was an integral part of the political agreement that enabled recent progress. In addition, removing paragraphs 9 and 10 would mean that, should the Assembly not elect to use the Minister/junior Minister model in the first instance to set up a Department of Justice, it would be unable to switch to this model at a later date, should it wish to do that.
	Amendment 23 also seeks to remove paragraphs 9 and 10, which make technical amendments to sections 21B and 21C of the 1998 Act to allow for the possibility of this model—the Minister/Deputy Minister model—being selected as the second model. This is necessary because at the time that model was legislated for, it was anticipated that it would be used as the first model and the legislation was drafted accordingly. The Government therefore oppose this amendment.
	This clause and schedule are necessary to give effect to the agreement reached by First and Deputy First Ministers on the departmental model for a Justice Department and, as such, to pave the way for the future devolution of policing and justice at the point that the Assembly is ready to request it.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State has dealt with one of our amendments—that relating to the independence of the judiciary and the police—but he has not really spoken to amendments 5 and 6 regarding the time limit for appointment both now and after an Assembly election. May I invite him to do so?

Shaun Woodward: With respect, I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads  Hansard, he will see that I did in fact address that.
	In conclusion, let me simply say that I believe these issues were very carefully weighed by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, that it reached the right conclusions, and that this model will give stability and fairness for this interim period until arrangements for a permanent Department are put in place. It might also be of assistance if I remind the hon. Gentleman that these proposals include a review of the arrangements by the Assembly before May 2012. That should provide some comfort to him, and to other hon. Members who, very understandably, have highlighted issues, but which I believe can, on closer scrutiny, be satisfied.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Judicial appointments and removals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
	That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
	That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
	That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
	That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Alasdair McDonnell: We are opposed to clause 2, and schedules 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, standing part of the Bill. In our view, all those provisions deal with the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in judicial appointments. I wish to make it clear that although the SDLP has never advocated political interference in judicial appointments, we feel it appropriate that there should be some democratic input from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
	We have endorsed what is in the criminal justice review, which emerged from the original Belfast, or Good Friday, agreement—namely, a limited political role for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This involved the Judicial Appointments Commission taking the lead role for all appointments below High Court level, but with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister having the power to require the JAC to reconsider—once only, I hasten to add—in respect of any vacancy and perhaps come up with an alternative or further recommendation. The criminal justice review gave the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister a more limited role still in the senior appointments—the High Court appointments—but we feel that that struck an appropriate balance in order to provide some democratic or political input without necessarily creating political interference. Clause 2 and schedules 2 to 6 end any sort of democratic input in judicial appointments, and that means that we will not have devolution of the responsibility for judicial appointments. Let us be clear that nothing in schedule 6 means that the useful existing arrangements can be, or will be, revived.
	Similarly, the criminal justice review provided for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be given a limited role in the removal of a judge, should that ever become necessary for whatever reason. Under the current arrangements, they could manage to trigger a tribunal to consider a difficulty associated with a less senior judge who was appointed, but they could not directly remove an individual judge. Again, the opportunity to trigger has disappeared. Although the criminal justice review was implemented by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and was extended in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004, all this appears to be gone. I presume—I do not know—that this has been done somehow or other with the agreement of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and their respective parties. I, like my SDLP colleagues, believe that this is the wrong way to go. We believe that the criminal justice review struck the right balance, and I believe that is why this House legislated for that balance in 2002 and 2004. Does the Secretary of State really now believe that the balance struck by those Acts and passed by this House got it wrong somewhere or other? I suggest that clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: I shall make a small contribution to this clause stand part debate. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) advanced the argument that it is wrong to remove certain powers from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, although these powers are limited in relation to the appointment and removal of judges. I say that because time and again we have heard members of his party, and perhaps him too, rail against what they describe as power grabs by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the office that they hold. All sorts of arguments have been advanced in the Assembly, and outside it, about how my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and others are out to take ever more powers to the centre and so on, yet here we are, in a situation in which they have agreed to divest themselves of certain responsibilities on the basis of removing any hint—

Alasdair McDonnell: rose—

Nigel Dodds: I shall give way.

Alasdair McDonnell: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps distinguish between short-term abuse or mismanagement by the current office holders and the point that I am trying to make, which is the important and all-embracing nature of this issue? This is about the long-term and about what happens whoever the office holders may be. The fact that the current office holders perhaps do not behave in the most appropriate way is no argument for not doing the thing right.

Nigel Dodds: I am not sure that that intervention really clarifies things or helps to advance the case that the hon. Gentleman made. Indeed, the recent Financial Assistance (Northern Ireland) Act 2009 was a long-term solution to a pressing problem to do with a gap in the powers of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and it was bitterly opposed by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues even though it will provide hardship relief to many vulnerable people in our communities across the board.
	The appointment of senior judges in Northern Ireland is a sensitive and important issue—as is the whole issue of justice and policing devolution, which is why we need to scrutinise it carefully with sufficient time to do so. I agree with others who have said that they are disappointed about the lack of time for proper scrutiny. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should take the position that he has. I would have thought that most people in Northern Ireland were somewhat reassured by the fact that there should be no suggestion of political interference in the appointment of High Court judges, given the role that they play. The hon. Gentleman talked about a democratic input, but people are concerned that political interference might be brought to bear on such appointments. I have to point out that for positions much less sensitive and important than that of High Court judge, his party has been careful to point out how politicians should be removed from the process of both appointment and removal. I fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's approach in this case.
	My party believes that this process is an advance and will provide reassurance. It helps with confidence building, and people across the board in Northern Ireland will be reassured that politicians will not have an input in judicial appointments and removals. There is an important role for Assembly politicians to play in many other areas, but judicial appointment and removal should not be a matter for party politics. We support this clause as it is an improvement on the current position and it is in line with our party policies and our manifesto commitments.

Laurence Robertson: I wish briefly to place on record our opinion that this part of the Bill is actually the most agreeable, largely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and especially given the difficult negotiations that have taken place up to this point. It is my understanding that the question of who appoints the judiciary has been one of the sticking points, and it is therefore important that politicians are taken out of the process of selection or dismissal of the judiciary. The principle of separation of powers comes to mind, but, given the sensitive situation in Northern Ireland, this is the best way forward. I am therefore afraid that we cannot support the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) if he presses this issue.

Paul Goggins: I have a very long speech, but the House will be delighted to learn that I do not intend to use it all.
	I thank the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for their support. The phrase used by the latter to describe this clause was "an advance" and, much as it grieves me, I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) on this point. In the discussions that we have had today, the issue of independence has been at the forefront of our minds in relation to other matters. Clearly, in the separation between judicial appointments and removal on the one hand and the political process on the other, there is always a delicate balance to strike. It is important that we strike it in the right place—and in this context, that we strike it in the right place for Northern Ireland.
	Clause 2 introduces schedules 2 to 6—in other words, most of the content of the Bill—and makes provision in relation to judicial appointments and removals. In broad terms, the Bill provides that responsibility post-devolution for most judicial appointments will rest with the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and that the role for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as originally envisaged under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, would fall instead to the commission. Let me give an example. New section 12 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 provides that the Lord Chief Justice and lords justices of appeal shall be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Before making a recommendation, the Prime Minister must consult the Lord Chief Justice or, if that office is vacant, the senior Lord Justice of Appeal who is available, and the Judicial Appointments Commission. The proposed procedure is broadly similar to that set out in the 2002 Act, although the requirement on the Prime Minister to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and their subsequent engagement with the commission are removed.
	In terms of removals, the 2002 Act also anticipated that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would be responsible for the removal of listed judicial office holders after devolution. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of schedule 3 amend sections 6 to 8 of the 2002 Act to provide that the Executive functions that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would have exercised in relation to the removal of listed judicial office holders will instead be conferred on the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, or on the Northern Ireland judicial appointments ombudsman.
	The key point is that amending the arrangements for judicial appointments and removals so as to omit any Executive function for Northern Ireland Ministers has clearly been a key element of the agreement between the parties setting out the process leading to the devolution of policing and justice powers. Indeed, let me refer explicitly to the letter from the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. This was agreed:
	"In order to ensure the independence of the Judiciary responsibilities in relation to the appointment and removal of judicial office holders would rest with the Judicial Appointments Commission."
	The schedules do exactly that. We are entirely in line with the mood from the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and with the will of the Assembly as a whole. The clear separation and the removal of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister from their advisory and appointment functions is broadly supported and is the right way forward.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause  2 accordingly  orde red to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: We now come to amendment 18.

Eddie McGrady: With the permission of the House, I should like to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but silence would have effected the same result.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Miscellaneous Amendments

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end add—
	'(4) Section 22 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 is amended as follows—
	(a) for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and the provisions of section 5 (as amended) shall have effect for the procedure governing such appointment".
	(5) In the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 omit section 41.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 15, line 12, at end insert—
	'(11A) In section 42 for subsection (1) substitute—
	"(1) The Director must exercise his functions under the superintendence of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland in relation to devolved matters and the Advocate General for Northern Ireland in relation to retained matters and is subject to any directions given by either of them thereunder, but a failure to comply with this subsection does not affect the validity of anything done by or on behalf of the Director."'.

Laurence Robertson: We have reached the amendments rather earlier than I had anticipated, but I am not complaining about that. Nevertheless, I want to tell the Government that we are still short of time.
	We have talked a lot about strengthening the independence of the judiciary. One of our proposals is that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice on the advice of the Judicial Appointments Commission and not by politicians. I know that when the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) intervened at an earlier stage, I said that I would return to that point. I have since had a brief word with him to clarify his concern. We have talked about the matter and we feel that our amendment is probably the best way forward. I cannot go into all the details now, as I do not have time, but if we get time later we can return to that point. We have discussed the matter with our shadow Attorney-General. We have had extensive discussions about the amendment and we feel that it would improve the Bill. We believe that the amendment would have the added advantage of strengthening the principle of devolution, as the independent nature of the appointments system, free from political interference, would stabilise a very sensitive process.
	We are also concerned about how, under the proposed model, the Director of Public Prosecutions after devolution would be left without supervision or protection by a person accountable to the Assembly. We agree that his role should be made independent and free from politicians, but the Government propose creating a hybrid that, in effect, would leave him entirely unaccountable and unprotected.
	The DPP has far reaching powers. His is a very powerful role—for example, he can enter a nolle prosequi application, or decide to prosecute or to stop criminal proceedings—yet he is answerable to no one. He may carry out his functions how he wishes, and he would be removed only in extreme circumstances, such as if he were totally failing to carry out his role. We do not believe that that should be the case. The DPP, like other members of public bodies and the judiciary, should be capable of being held accountable. We propose that he should enjoy the supervision of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland on devolved matters, and of the Advocate-General on reserved matters.
	Our amendment would have the added advantage of providing the DPP with a colleague who could speak for his Department in the Assembly. In Great Britain, the Attorney-General is a member of the Government and can speak in Parliament on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, so we feel that the DPP should have the same protection in Northern Ireland. We feel more strongly about this part of the Bill than about most others.

Shaun Woodward: Has the hon. Gentleman had time to consider how he can square the proposals in his amendment with the advice given to the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland? That gave very clear indications as to how the legislation should be set out.

Laurence Robertson: We have not had a huge amount of time, but we have studied the matter to the extent that we were able. We are still persuaded that we are putting forward a better argument.

Shaun Woodward: I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, and I hear that he may be proposing to divide the House over this amendment. That would matter a great deal, as the signal that that would send out is so important.
	The advice to which I am referring makes it very clear why the review decided that the separation should take place in the way that is set out in the Bill, and why it should be structured as we propose. The review was carried out in 2000 and published in 2002, which means that, even if they have not drawn it to his attention before today, the hon. Gentleman's advisers have had several years to look at it. His amendment would tear up the proposals in the Bill. Why, given the importance of the future and stability of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, does he choose to advocate that?

Laurence Robertson: Well—

Jonathan Djanogly: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Laurence Robertson: Certainly.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the model being adopted is more or less the same as the one that exists in the Republic of Ireland? The model that he is talking about is more like the English one.

Laurence Robertson: rose—

Shaun Woodward: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I have to maintain some semblance of order here. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) was taking an intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), so I think that he has to be allowed to respond to that before he can take any further interventions.

Laurence Robertson: I can respond very simply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). We have of course discussed the matter, and I agree entirely with him.

Nigel Dodds: Surprise!

Laurence Robertson: Our great difficulty with the Bill as it stands is that we believe that the DPP will be accountable to no one, and we cannot accept that. We also see that he will be completely unprotected by anyone able to report to the Assembly. That is the basis for our argument.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has momentarily left his seat, but I know that he will be seeking to catch your eye, Sir Alan. Perhaps he and the Secretary of State will be able to attack each other without me having to act as referee, but I have set out the basis for our objection to the Bill as it stands.

Shaun Woodward: I am always delighted to engage with the hon. Gentleman, but with huge respect, given the importance of the issue, the signal that the amendment sends and the work of the criminal justice review, before he decides to divide the House, may I suggest that if he and his advisers are not up to speed with the criminal justice review—it can happen to any of us—they take the time to get up to speed, before we send what would seem to be a very destabilising signal to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland?

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful for the way in which the Secretary of State is attempting to persuade me not to press the amendment to a Division, but we have discussed the issue as far as parliamentary time would allow. He tried, very gently, to persuade me not to push the case, so I will respond as gently as I can: we have all been put in a difficult position, not only by today's unnecessarily tight timetable, but by the timetable under which the Bill was laid before Parliament. I know that the Secretary of State delayed its introduction for one week, but we still had very little time to discuss it. Nevertheless, we have certainly consulted the document to which he refers, and we are concerned about the fact that the DPP would be in a difficult position if our amendment were not carried.

Patrick Cormack: I want to be helpful. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I admire his assiduous work for Northern Ireland considerably, but we are in a very unsatisfactory situation. The timetable is ridiculous. Would it not be sensible to confer with our friends in the other place, and then perhaps table an amendment?  [Interruption.] If I could have my hon. Friend's attention for half a second, if there is to be a Division, let it be after further mature consideration in the other place.

Laurence Robertson: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns on the matter. We have carried out a great deal of consultation on the subject. The advice that we were given, which may contradict the advice in the document to which the Secretary of State refers, was that we really should revisit a situation in which the DPP is unsupervised and unprotected.

Shaun Woodward: I genuinely really want to help the hon. Gentleman. With huge respect, again, the criminal justice review is not just some document, or some piece of consultation. It is the document on which much of the present and future judicial system in Northern Ireland is based. If the hon. Gentleman's advisers have failed to consult the document—they have had seven years to do so, and not just the afternoon—I honestly advise him not to press the amendment. It is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that he gives himself and his advisers time to reflect on the matter.

Laurence Robertson: I understand that we have 17 minutes left, and I know that one or two other hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate. Of course, we will listen to what they have to say, but I think that I have made the case for what we are proposing, and I shall leave the matter there.

Alistair Carmichael: I will not detain the House long. I have a lot of sympathy for the predicament in which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) finds himself. The Secretary of State is right that the review has been around since 2002, but it is only 10 days ago that we knew how it would affect the legislation. I do not think that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury is to be criticised for probing the issue in the way that he has done.
	I come to the question as a former career prosecutor. My experience informs me that the independence of the prosecution service is important. The reasoning behind the conclusions of the review were sound, and they ought to be supported. They should not be dismissed lightly. There is certainly a case to be made for ensuring proper accountability for the Public Prosecution Service, particularly in respect of its use of resources. That accountability is best done as it is in the Scottish model by the Lord Advocate answering questions in Parliament. I do not know whether the DPP has some audience rights within Stormont. If not, that would be the obvious cure for the defect identified by the hon. Gentleman and by others. Beyond that, the independence of the prosecution services in going about their work is of supreme importance and I would caution the hon. Gentleman against pursuing this matter too far.

Peter Robinson: It is sufficient to say that I am not entirely persuaded by the argument that has been advanced so far. I will speak for only a few minutes, which may give the opportunity for a strategic withdrawal to be arranged, which would be sensible in the circumstances.
	The amendment that I want to touch on relates to the Attorney-General. The Opposition spokesman is right that I intervened earlier to say that the Lord Chief Justice would be put in a difficult position by that proposition. The Lord Chief Justice would be asked to appoint an Attorney-General—one of the QCs, no doubt, who would be a member of the Bar—and any time that the Attorney-General would appear before the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice would be hearing the case from his chosen one, the one whom he had favoured, and unquestionably there would be people who would doubt the independence of any decision that would arise therefrom.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are conventions that deal with such conflicts?

Peter Robinson: That would mean removing the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior Law Officer, from the most important cases; no doubt, those being taken in defence of the Government. That would not be a wise move.
	Much of today's debate has been on what appeared to be the unanimous decision of the House that greater independence was needed and that politicians should not be in the job of appointing judges. Now we have the proposition that the judges should appoint those who will go into the political arena to answer questions in the Assembly and to represent the politicians in the Government, and that is not a good way forward either.
	The actual outcome was one of the easiest for the Deputy First Minister and I to come to an agreement on. I think it took only a few hours for us to agree who the best person might be for the post of Attorney-General when the moment came to make such an appointment, and we publicly said that our choice was John Larkin, QC. I have not heard one word of disagreement from any section of the community about that choice. The politicians were able to make that choice in a way that was responsible and would have merited confidence in the community. I suspect that the proposition offered by the Conservative party would not do that.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose—

The Chairman: I am sorry to have to say it in open Committee to the hon. Gentleman, but it is not permissible for two members of the Front-Bench team to speak in the debate or to intervene, so it is rather unusual for him to seek to speak when the amendment has already been moved from the Front Bench.

Laurence Robertson: On a point of order, Sir Alan. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is not a member of the Northern Ireland Front-Bench team.

The Chairman: The instruction given on the Bench Note is that the Committee stage Front-Bench team would comprise the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). As the amendment has been moved from the Front Bench, we must rest at that.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who speak from the Opposition Front Bench, are being given advice by their adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who sometimes speaks from the Front Bench, so they cannot hear the advice that I am trying to give them, but I earnestly beseech them to recognise that, after due consideration, they have hit upon an important point, which clearly merits further consideration. I hope that, having heard what the First Minister said—I am sure they did—they will take carefully to heart his gentle, persuasive advice, have further discussions with our noble Friends who will debate this Bill for two whole days and arrange for a proper debate on a similar amendment in another place.
	In the meantime, due consideration could be given to all the literature on this subject—particularly to the seminal document to which the Secretary of State referred. It can then be decided whether the proposal is sensible or whether it would be better to make another one. I urge my hon. Friends to ponder those points, and not to press for a Division.

Paul Goggins: It is time for a pause, to breathe and reflect. If the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) wishes to intervene to tease this issue out a little further, I will be more than happy to give way. However, like the Secretary of State, I have to put it to the hon. Gentleman that if he were to insist on a vote, he would seek to overturn a fundamental principle and part of the Northern Ireland criminal justice review of 2000 and the subsequent legislation. That would be a significant step.

Laurence Robertson: The fact that there was a review several years ago does not bind us today. That said, we try to deal with these matters on a cross-party basis. Given the advice of the Secretary of State, the Minister, the First Minister and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—and given the misunderstanding, no doubt our fault, that led to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon not being able to contribute—we would like to reserve the right to return to the issue in another place. I will not press the amendment to a Division.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman and I spend a lot of time in Committee together, and I have always found his approach to such issues entirely practical. I thank him for that. The issue is as significant as I have set out, so I am pleased that he is taking further time to reflect. As Members of the other place consider the issue in the days ahead, I am sure that they will look at what the review document says.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister keeps referring to the review. Although we appreciate that there has been a review and although, in contrast to what the Secretary of State said, we did read it, does the Minister not appreciate that we are still entitled to debate the issue? The Minister speaks as if we are not allowed to.

Paul Goggins: Any party is, of course, entitled to raise debate in this place; that is what this place is about. However, we also have to respect and recognise that in the process of improvement and change towards peace and progress in Northern Ireland, certain key staging posts have been reached. A very important staging post was the criminal justice review in 2000 and the subsequent legislation that went through the House. We have to respect that. Without that settlement, much development of the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland that has happened since would not have happened.
	The question of independence is important. I return to what the document itself says:
	"in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, we believe that this independence should be further strengthened, by ensuring that the relationship between the Attorney General and the head of the prosecution service, while containing elements of oversight, is consultative and not supervisory. In other words, there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters."
	Indeed, reference was made to Lord Mayhew's comments during the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002:
	"Given the highly charged atmosphere of Northern Ireland—to use a well-chosen word that appears in the review—it is important that this enormously invasive prosecution arm of the state should be exercised in Northern Ireland by an official who is entirely independent. That is a departure from the current system in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2002; Vol. 636, CWH 93.]
	So it is a different system, but a system that, following the review, was felt to be highly appropriate for Northern Ireland. That does not mean that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions do not have a relationship: they do; it is a very strong relationship that is bound by statutory consultation. As I said earlier, there will be robust exchanges between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in drawing up the code of practice for prosecutors. They have a statutory relationship in terms of consultation but not in terms of superintendence or direction.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am pleased that the Minister is admitting that we will now be pulling away from the system that exists in this country, which did not seem to come across in his earlier remarks, but who is the DPP going to answer to?

Paul Goggins: The DPP will be answerable to the Assembly for the use of resources and the administration of its office—that is very clear—but not for individual prosecution decisions, which are entirely for the independent DPP. It is important at the point of devolution that that is made absolutely clear and enshrined in the institutions.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I chaired the Assembly and Executive Review Committee for a time. When we considered these matters, it was our understanding that when the Director of Public Prosecutions presented his annual report he would come to the Justice Committee in the Assembly and be subject to questioning, and the Committee would have the opportunity to consider his report. A degree of accountability is therefore built into the system.

Paul Goggins: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. This does not apply only to producing the annual report. If a Committee, particularly the Justice Committee, wished to take evidence from the DPP, the DPP could be invited to attend and such evidence could be given. Indeed, the DPP gives evidence to Select Committees in this House, as the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will know.

Nigel Dodds: It is also worth pointing out, further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), that when all these issues were considered in the Assembly, I do not remember a single Member or party raising any concern on this particular point. The issue of independence, which we discussed in relation to a previous clause, has been accepted in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: Indeed, it is broadly accepted, certainly in the conversations that I have with the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or anybody else. The issue of independence is absolutely written through the whole system and is seen as highly significant.
	It is not only the DPP who may be invited to give evidence and have to produce an annual report—the Attorney-General, too, may be so invited. Indeed, both will have speaking rights in the Assembly and be able to speak to and respond to Assembly Members, whether in the Assembly or in Committee. There is a very clear structure of relationships both between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions and between those office holders and the Assembly.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) touched on the appointment of the Attorney-General and pointed out the difficulties that would be faced were the Lord Chief Justice to make that appointment. There would also be a difficulty given that the Attorney-General has always been seen as somebody who would have a wider advisory role in giving legal advice, perhaps advising the Executive on certain key issues. It would be very uncomfortable, I suggest, for the Lord Chief Justice to appoint the person who would then advise the Executive. Any Lord Chief Justice would approach such a scenario with extreme caution. Of course, it is very important that the Attorney-General has independence, which should be safeguarded from inappropriate political pressure. The appointment of the Attorney-General, therefore, is made jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the choice of John Larkin is, as far as I can tell, generally and widely welcomed.

Laurence Robertson: As previously indicated, and for the reasons that I gave, we will not press the amendment to a vote. We reserve the right to consider it further over the next few days, but we will not press it to a vote tonight.
	 Debate interrupted (Order, this day).
	 The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Order, this day), That the amendment be made.
	 Question negatived.
	 The Chairman then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).
	 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Northern Ireland department with policing and justice functions

Amendment proposed: 2 , in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
	 'Minister ceasing to hold office 7A Paragraph 3D(11)(c) of Schedule 4A to the 1998 Act does not apply—
	(a) before a resolution is passed for the purposes of paragraph 8(1)(a) below, or
	(b) if no such resolution is passed, before 1 May 2012.'.— (Mr. Carmichael.)
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 56, Noes 376.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to..
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Business without Debate

CORONERS AND JUSTICE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the Order of 26 January 2009 (Coroners and Justice Bill (Programme)) shall be amended, in paragraph 2, by substituting 'Tuesday 10 March' for 'Thursday 5 March'.— (Helen Goodman.)
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the Question on motions 6 and 7 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Employment Tribunals

That the draft Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.— (Helen Goodman.)
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Second Strategic Energy Review And European Energy Networks

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 15944/08 and ADDS 1 to 4, Commission Communication: Second Strategic Energy Review—An EU energy security and solidarity plan, and 15927/08, Commission Green Paper: Towards a secure, sustainable and competitive European energy network; and further notes the Government's support for appropriate action at the European level, where this would be effective in furthering energy efficiency, security of supply and the development of a liberalised energy market within the Union.— (Helen Goodman.)
	 The Deputy Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 11 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Church of England Pensions (Amendment) Measure, which was laid before the House on 23 February, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure, which was laid before the House on 23 February, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.— (Helen Goodman.)

ENERGY GENERATION (FOOD WASTE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Ms Butler.)

Philip Dunne: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of increasing importance for this country, which touches on many aspects of public policy. Energy from food waste raises issues of energy security, waste management policy, climate change, land use, food security and the environment in which we all live. The House will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to cover all those topics in detail this evening, as there is simply not enough time.
	I wish to focus my remarks on the case for energy generation from food waste, specifically through the process of anaerobic digestion. I should declare a constituency interest right away. Ludlow is rightly famous for the quality of its food, both from local producers and also through the outstanding Michelin starred restaurants in Ludlow town itself, as well as the many other fine places to eat across the constituency. But Ludlow is also fast becoming known for what we do with the food that we produce but cannot eat—the food left on our plate; food waste—both in our homes and in commercial premises and processors.
	Since 2007, such waste has been collected by South Shropshire district council and taken to the Biocycle anaerobic digester on the edge of Ludlow, which is operated by Biogen Greenfinch, where it is turned into biogas, which generates heat and electricity. It is the first of only two such plants operating in this country. It is a fitting legacy for South Shropshire district council, which will sadly disappear on the 31 March, that under a Conservative administration it has pioneered the innovative use of this technology to turn waste into electricity.
	Anaerobic digestion and the gases produced by natural decomposition as a process can be traced back to the 16th century. While the first construction of an anaerobic digester was apparently in a leper colony in Bombay in 1859, it was English scientists who developed the technology to generate gas for street lighting in Victorian England. I am afraid that, as a nation, we have lost that early technological lead. One of my criticisms of this Government's supposed enthusiasm for green energy has been the lamentable progress made in recent years in encouraging that technology.
	This is a low-tech, low-carbon biological process that happens naturally when bacteria break down organic matter in environments with little or no oxygen. It essentially mimics the workings of a cow's stomach and produces a biogas made up of around 40 per cent. carbon dioxide and 60 per cent. methane—a greenhouse gas, as hon. Members know, that is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is effectively a controlled and enclosed version of the anaerobic breakdown of organic waste in landfill. It provides an almost ideal methane-mitigation policy, because the methane is captured and has no opportunity to escape into the atmosphere.
	Almost any organic material can be processed with anaerobic digestion, including waste paper, cardboard—which is often of too low a grade to recycle, if it has been contaminated by, for example, close proximity to food—grass clippings, leftover food, industrial effluents, sewage and animal waste.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am pleased to support my hon. Friend, who is my Shropshire neighbour. He has mentioned the various things that can be used in anaerobic digestion. I met the Environment Agency today, which mentioned that slurry is used for those purposes in other European countries. Does my hon. Friend agree—I speak as chairman of the all-party dairy farmers group—that the Government should do more to communicate the potential for putting slurry into those digesters, particularly bearing in mind the difficulties farmers face with nitrates directives?

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and want to put on the record that he does valiant work for the dairy industry through the all-party group. To some extent, he has pre-empted a point that I was going to make, which I will cover now. There is 20 or 30 years' experience of generating energy through heat from slurry in a process of anaerobic digestion—I believe that the first plants were opened in the 1980s. There are only about 20 or so farm slurry plants in operation, of which four are based in Shropshire or the Shropshire borders. An innovative farmer, Mr. Clive Pugh, who lives within four miles of Bishop's Castle in my constituency, persuaded about half a dozen farmers to adopt that technology in the early 1990s. He is now investing in generating capacity to turn that into electricity, as well as heat for his dairy parlour. We are, however, way behind many other European countries in this area.

Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend may not know this, but I was something of a trailblazer in this field when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and I invested in an anaerobic facility in Dorset nearly 30 years ago. I am sorry to say that we lost all our money, but there is no doubt that even in those days, the aims and the opportunities were clear. As my hon. Friend has persuasively argued, the science has advanced very quickly, so the opportunities should not be confined to Ludlow, but should be nationwide.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as so often in matters to do with food, was an early mover in this area. I am sorry to hear that his investment was not as fruitful as it might well be if he were able to make it today.
	In other European countries, generating energy from farm waste is significantly more advanced. In Germany, there are about 4,000 plants. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) asked whether the Government should be doing more. Only as recently as last month, they finally produced a vision for anaerobic digestion, which I am sure the Minister will refer to. Their vision is to encourage by 2020 some 1,000 farms across the country to use anaerobic digestion to deal with farm slurry. I applaud that, although it was not the Government's idea—I cannot claim that it was mine, as it came from the National Farmers Union, which produced exactly that figure in October last year—and welcome its adoption as Government policy.
	The process is not quite as efficient for farm slurry as it is for food waste, as the animals, in generating the slurry, consume some of the nutrients that would otherwise be available directly in the food. Some by-products of farm waste, through slurry, are not as nutrient rich for the fertiliser that comes out at the other end, if I may put it that way, whereas food waste has the benefit of providing a nutrient-rich fertiliser, which is another reason why anaerobic digestion is a better use of food waste than incineration, due to the quality of the by-product.
	Having touched on the Government's new vision for anaerobic digestion, I should discuss the other aspect, which is that they are looking for 100 commercial plants to use food and other organic materials to generate electricity through anaerobic digestion. They have helped to fund the existing two plants, including the plant in Ludlow. While that is welcome, they have been, to put it generously, slow to recognise the potential of the technology. They have been asleep at the wheel, and I am grateful that they are now catching up to where other parties have reached in seeing the potential of reliable renewable energy from food waste.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman, who is being extraordinarily generous in giving way, agree that one reason why the technology has not taken off as quickly as it should have done is because of difficulties in planning and, perhaps, certain concerns among neighbours locally as to how they might be affected? Examples of good practice would assuage those fears.

Philip Dunne: The hon. Gentleman is right to a degree in that whenever the word "waste" is attached to a planning application, there is fear or concern among local populations about what the impact might be on residents. I shall come on to describe what happened in Ludlow, so as to give him and the Government some reassurance that, at the right scale, the process not only becomes relatively straightforward to get through in planning terms, but has few of the associated risks to local residents that people fear from other types of energy generation from waste—in particular, from domestic refuse.
	That takes me to a description of what happened in Ludlow. The plant began by combining green waste with food waste. As I have said, green waste can go through the same process, but relatively quickly it became clear that the contamination of waste put into green bins in order for it to be digested is a fraught issue. On a visit to the plant, the manager showed me a concrete block that had been placed in a green bin, and old kettles were also placed in green bins. That is not the stated objective of the green bin, but I am afraid that, until people are much more educated about how to deal with recycling and the separation of waste, such errors will arise, wittingly or unwittingly. Such errors pose a significant problem for the efficient operation of the plant, and it was therefore decided quite quickly to focus purely on food waste. As a result, not only domestic collections but commercial waste were used to obtain the necessary volumes.
	The plant in Ludlow is on a 0.2 hectare site, and it is capable of processing 5,000 tonnes a year. The original plan was for the immediate population of Ludlow—nearly 10,000 people—to be able to generate enough green and food waste to serve that processing capacity. However, with the focus solely on food waste, that proved insufficient, so the collection is now being made from neighbouring towns. There are currently 7,000 participating households generating food waste from a weekly collection in separate caddies supplied by the local authority.
	The cost of collection is relatively high in the pilot, but the local authority, working with the collection company, Veolia, is considering the possibility of providing a separate collection alongside the existing collection of either green or ordinary domestic waste, which takes place fortnightly in South Shropshire. The great advantage of taking food out of the domestic waste stream is that because of odour and vermin problems, residents become concerned if it is not collected more regularly than every fortnight. That is the main reason for the popular opposition to a fortnightly collection scheme. Putting the waste in a separate container from which it can be collected weekly, along with both green and domestic waste, disposes of the problem and represents a major advantage to residents. Another major advantage is the capture of the odour in the processing building, and specifically in the contained vessel once it is "cooking". The initial odour problems in the plant have been dealt with quite satisfactorily and relatively quickly, although the plant is within 200 m of the nearest house.
	Let me return to the point originally made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). The planning application was supported on a cross-party basis. Although I made a party political point in saying that the Conservatives introduced the scheme, I concede that it was supported by the Liberal Democrats on the local authority, which ensured that this was not a partisan issue and that residents were not stirred up to object to the application. Residents now accept the scheme as part of the fabric of Ludlow, and, as I have said, are beginning to see the benefits of the weekly food waste collection.
	I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the additional benefit that the scheme reduces the number of waste miles. The plant is a prototype, and it could not be replicated across the country on a commercial scale covering 10,000 households. Work needs to be done to determine the most appropriate minimum size, but 30,000 to 50,000 households would probably bring the concept to a commercial level and would be appropriate for most large and medium-sized towns. There would be a significant reduction in both the cost and the environmental damage that would be incurred in the transport of large volumes of waste over large distances to reach the few available landfill sites, which is the current alternative.

Lynne Jones: I strongly support the concept of anaerobic digestion, particularly if it is used to generate heat rather than electricity. In the context of household collection, however, would it not be better to concentrate on commercial food waste and to encourage householders to compost their food waste at home? That is what I do, using the bokashi and Green Cone systems.

Philip Dunne: There is clearly a case for composting green wastes in households with the necessary space and capacity, such as those fortunate enough to have gardens, but according to information provided by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, some 17 per cent. of all waste is food waste in one form or another, whether it is commercial or domestic. The domestic component is very significant. It will not be possible to persuade everybody to compost, because that is simply not an option for people living in buildings in multiple occupation, for example. There is a place for composting, but we need to look at the whole range of options when trying to generate renewable energy, and this is one significant option that hitherto this country has failed to adopt, for the reasons that I have outlined, and it should be encouraged in the future.
	I am coming towards the end of my remarks, as I know the Minister wants to reply and tell us what wonderful things the Government are doing. Before he does so, however, I wish to say that the green energy proposals recently put forward by my colleagues have emphasised that biogas could potentially account for some 50 per cent. of residential gas heating. That is an eminently achievable target, if there is sufficient adoption of the technology across the country. It will require feed-in tariffs and continued use of double renewables obligation certificates, which is the regime that currently applies, but the environmental gains, especially from replacing fossil fuel fertiliser in the agricultural industry, which is a significant generator of greenhouse gases, are enormous. I urge the Minister to do as much as he can to push forward this policy as fast as he can. I would be delighted to welcome him to Ludlow so he can see what we have achieved, as some of his predecessors did.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) on drawing this important and timely subject to the House's attention. Although I may at some future date be able to take up his invitation to visit his constituency, I have to say I know it very well from the days when I used to rattle through it, within the speed limits, on my old in-line-four Honda CB550K on my way back and forth from university every weekend. It is a beautiful part of the country, and it is great to hear about this innovation.
	The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn our attention to the Biocycle anaerobic digester plant, and the Government have identified anaerobic digestion as the preferred method of treating food waste in our waste strategy 2007. Before I forget, may I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for her intervention? There is a place for composting as well, right at the source, but the Government are certainly very much in favour of anaerobic digestion as one of the ways forward.
	The financial help provided towards the development of the Biocycle plant is a prime example of our support for the technology. The hon. Gentleman was understandably full of praise for South Shropshire's role, and I agree, but I was surprised that he condemned what he implied was the Labour Government's lamentable record on investment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding covered the costs of the design, build, commissioning and operation of this plant for 8,000 hours, and the original contracted payment was £537,162, and it subsequently increased by £122,158 to give a total of £659,320—and I could go on. Not only in terms of Biocycle but across the board, this Government put significant investment into resources, expertise and money to support such developments.
	While this Government support the development of such technology, we must not forget the bigger picture. In the UK, we currently pay for, but do not eat, about £10 billion of food every year; that is equivalent to an astonishing average of £420 of waste per household every year. About 6.7 million tonnes of food is wasted, and that rises to 10 million tonnes if we include the retail and commercial sector. I must say that my parents and our grandparents would be banging the dinner table at us and saying, "Eat your food up!"
	This food waste has large environmental and social impacts. Much of the waste currently ends up in landfill sites and degrades to produce dangerous greenhouse gases. Each tonne of food waste that is treated by plants such as the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency saves a tonne of CO2 compared with landfilling. I do not think we can, but if we could deal with the problem and all those hundreds of tonnes purely through anaerobic digestion, it would result in the equivalent of removing one in five cars from the road, in terms of 18 million tonnes of CO2.
	Enough of the statistics—what are we doing to tackle this waste? First, the Government's waste strategy, which was published in 2007, put a strong emphasis on waste prevention. The Waste and Resources Action Programme, to which reference has been made, and its partners are running the very good and consumer-facing Love Food Hate Waste campaign, which was launched in November 2007. It involves working closely with the UK grocery sector, the food industry and organisations such as the Food Standards Agency to make it easier for consumers to get the most from the food they buy and to waste less of it. Our target for March 2011 is to reduce the amount of waste food thrown away each year by 250,000 tonnes, and we are currently on track. We have also set ourselves an ambitious quantified target to secure commercial sector reductions at the back of store, and further up the supply chain.
	Despite those initiatives, we will inevitably be left with a large amount of food waste requiring treatment, and that is where anaerobic digestion comes in. It is ideal for wet, energy-rich waste food, and it ticks all the boxes environmentally. It can produce 100 per cent. renewable electricity by combustion of the methane captured from the digestion process; heat produced by the process is recycled within the plant and the treated residue—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—can be returned to the land as a fertiliser; and the whole process reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared with other waste processes. For those reasons, AD was identified in the Government's waste strategy as the preferred method for treating food waste, and it is a key component of our renewable energy strategy, which is to be published in June.
	Anaerobic digestion will contribute to the UK's share of the EU's binding target for renewable energy, which is proposed to be 15 per cent. by 2020. It will also help us to achieve the legally binding targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 to reduce UK CO2 emissions. The Government's initial analysis suggests that the anaerobic digestion of all organic wastes to produce biogas could contribute approximately 10 to 20 TW hours of heat and power by 2020. That represents between 3.8 and 7.5 per cent. of the renewable energy that we estimate will be required by 2020. Food waste could contribute around 30 per cent. of that.
	Although we are eager to see a much greater uptake by local authorities and businesses, anaerobic digestion can also provide our farmers with opportunities. It will help them to reduce the methane emissions produced by agriculture—those are running at 37 per cent. of the UK total—and allow them to diversify into the renewable energy field. We should not miss these opportunities. But for the treatment of food waste to develop, waste collections need to change. That is because AD ideally requires a clean stream of organic material and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is best achieved with separate collection of household food waste. Progress on this is good, but we know that there is more to do. Latest figures show that weekly separate collections of food cover well over 1 million households, in 37 local authority areas. Trials in 2007-08 supported by WRAP showed some encouraging participation rates, with an estimated capture of 62 per cent. of all food waste on average.
	Of course, for AD to develop it also needs a market and investors. They need certainty that the demand will be there for AD and its products before investing, so confidence needs to be built in the quality and use of the materials involved in the process. The Government are working hard to drive the increased use of AD forward in several ways. The hon. Gentleman will know of the changes that we have made to the Renewables Obligation Order. The revision of that shows the Government's long-term commitment to renewable electricity and will allow the sector to mature with certainty. Anaerobic digestion is among the technologies that will receive additional support in the form of two renewables obligation certificates per megawatt-hour from 1 April, as a result of changes introduced by the Energy Act 2008.
	We know that the residues, or digestates, from AD plants can be used as fertiliser. In order to facilitate market development in that area, the Environment Agency and WRAP have developed a standard and quality protocol. That sets out conditions for digestate production and use. A draft has already been published, and has been notified before the European Commission's technical standards committee. So we are making progress and we recognise the potential of the technology.
	The DEFRA-sponsored AD demonstration programme will support exciting projects in different sectors. A total of £10 million will be available from the environmental transformation fund until 31 March 2011. It will seek to fund between three and six projects that demonstrate different benefits of AD, and the Biocycle plant was an earlier example of a similar scheme.
	DEFRA also recently published "Anaerobic Digestion—Shared Goals", which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This outlines a programme of work with a broad range of stakeholders, including agriculture, energy and water utilities, the waste management sector, regulators, and local and regional government. To develop practical ways to increase the use of anaerobic digestion, we are setting up a new anaerobic digestion task group. Its implementation plan, which we hope to have in place later this year, will set out the practical measures that the Government and stakeholders can take to achieve the shared goals.
	I am also pleased to say that AD is one of the measures eligible for support under the rural development programme for England 2007-13. It also qualifies for the bioenergy capital grants scheme, which supports the installation of biomass-fuelled heating and combined heat and power projects, including anaerobic digesters.
	So progress is undoubtedly being made, but we need to do more. If the Government and all the stakeholders work together, we can succeed with this technology and create a prosperous AD market that benefits society, the environment and businesses.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important topic and I commend the work that is being done by Biocycle. We want to see more such work, with businesses and farmers taking advantage of this technology. It is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity. I thank the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for contributing to what has been a lively and informative debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.